I had a discussion with my grandfather about Romney (his #1 Candidate) versus Thompson (my #1). My single biggest reason for supporting Fred as my number one is that once a Federalist, Always a Federalist--what that means is that any Federalist cannot in any way find reason to support the massive Federal encroachment onto State's rights that Roe represented.
Roe has nothing to do with stem cells as Romney claims changed his mind. It has to do with the Feds dictating to the states what "Rights" they must protect based on something other than the Constitution. One cannot stand firm against Judicial Activism and support Roe. One cannot support State's Rights and support Roe.
So either Romney is a pragmatist and this issue was more pragmatic or Romney sn't as stong of an idealists on Federalism. Either way, this is dangerous ground because unless one is specifically looking for an Alito or Roberts, once can easily find a Kennedy or Sutter.
Bork's endorsement goes a long way. I think Romney was in a no win situation in MA in a state that is as Liberal as you can find. He led a very blue state in a very red way. As opposed to Huck who led a very red state in a rather blue way.
Fred is still my #1, but Romney is surging. Fred needs to get off of his ass and get some momentum. The "Mormons have a different Jesus" crowd is actually helping galvanize support behind Romney by scaring the shit out of the folks that see Huckabee for what he is--a social conservative Preacher that has no chance in a general election because his past sermons and statements don't resonate among anyone outside of the echo chamber of the religious right.
realitybasedbob
· 1 year ago
I didn't know that being a Nixon hatchet man qualified anybody for anything.
Call for Robert Bork [quote] President Nixon acted to dismiss Cox from his office the next night -- a Saturday. He contacted Attorney General Richardson and ordered him to fire the special prosecutor. Richardson refused, and instead resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus to fire Cox; he also refused and resigned in protest.
Nixon then contacted the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, and ordered him as acting head of the Justice Department to fire Cox, Bork complied with Nixon's order and fired Cox.[/quote]
Charlotte
· 1 year ago
For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com The truth will set them free...
Neiman
· 1 year ago
Charlotte "Judith Levine, writing in The Village Voice, offered support for these ideas in an article titled "Stop the Wedding: Why Gay Marriage Isn't Radical Enough." She wrote, "Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals on the ark. But it doesn't have to be that way. [u]In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.' Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders[/u]."
Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, summed up the situation in a recent Weekly Standard article. He noted that [u]if gay marriage is legalized, "marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three or more individuals (however weakly or temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female[/u] ... the bottom of this slope is visible from where we now stand."
We must all become soberly aware of a deeply disturbing reality: [b]The homosexual agenda is not marriage for gays. It is marriage for no one. And despite what you read or see in the media, it is definitely not monogamous[/b].
What will happen sociologically if marriage becomes anything or everything or nothing? The short answer is that the State will lose its compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriage has been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit. [u]With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it[/u]."
With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, and much more) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. [b]Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law[/b]. This is clearly where the movement is headed. If you doubt that this is the motive, read what is in the literature today. Activists have created a new word to replace the outmoded terms infidelity, adultery, cheating and promiscuity. The new concept is [b]POLYAMOROUS[/b]. It means the same thing (literally "many loves") but with the agreement of the primary sexual partner. Why not? He or she is probably polyamorous, too.
Liberal columnist Michael Kinsley wrote a July 2003 op-ed piece in The Washington Post titled, [b]"Abolish Marriage: Let's Really Get the Government Out Of Our Bedrooms."[/b] In this revealing editorial, Kinsley writes, [u]"[The] solution is to end the institution of marriage[/u], or rather, the solution is to end the institution of government monopoly on marriage. And yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let 'em. If you and your government aren't implicated, what do you care? [u]If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriages would become irrelevant[/u]." Otherwise, the author warns, "it's going to get ugly."
[quote]I'm surprised Rob allowed this to be posted here.[/quote]
Really? Why would you say that?
Proof
· 1 year ago
[quote]Why would you say that?[/quote][i]Some[/i] people don't realize that [i][b]honest[/b][/i] political discussion contains both the positives and negatives of [i]all[/i] the players involved.
Sphagnum
· 1 year ago
This should help those learly of Romney. He is positioned, with such short time before voting begins, to be the only alternative to Huckabee. If Huck wins Iowa and Romney wins New Hampshire, I forsee Thompson fading pretty fast before South Carolina actually votes and many of the Thompson folks sliding behind Romney to prevent Huck from dragging us all under..
But hey, what do I know...
Bat One
· 1 year ago
[quote]I didn't know that being a Nixon hatchet man qualified anybody for anything.[/quote]
RBB,
Its the sheer volume of everything else you don't know that ought to be troubling you.
All Comments
Roe has nothing to do with stem cells as Romney claims changed his mind. It has to do with the Feds dictating to the states what "Rights" they must protect based on something other than the Constitution. One cannot stand firm against Judicial Activism and support Roe. One cannot support State's Rights and support Roe.
So either Romney is a pragmatist and this issue was more pragmatic or Romney sn't as stong of an idealists on Federalism. Either way, this is dangerous ground because unless one is specifically looking for an Alito or Roberts, once can easily find a Kennedy or Sutter.
Bork's endorsement goes a long way. I think Romney was in a no win situation in MA in a state that is as Liberal as you can find. He led a very blue state in a very red way. As opposed to Huck who led a very red state in a rather blue way.
Fred is still my #1, but Romney is surging. Fred needs to get off of his ass and get some momentum. The "Mormons have a different Jesus" crowd is actually helping galvanize support behind Romney by scaring the shit out of the folks that see Huckabee for what he is--a social conservative Preacher that has no chance in a general election because his past sermons and statements don't resonate among anyone outside of the echo chamber of the religious right.
Opps my bad, you are taking about gops.
What ever became of that Nixon fella anyway?
[URL=http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2000531156358048949][IMG]http://aycu08.webshots.com/image/35607/2000531156358048949_rs.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Call for Robert Bork
[quote]
President Nixon acted to dismiss Cox from his office the next night -- a Saturday. He contacted Attorney General Richardson and ordered him to fire the special prosecutor. Richardson refused, and instead resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus to fire Cox; he also refused and resigned in protest.
Nixon then contacted the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, and ordered him as acting head of the Justice Department to fire Cox,
Bork complied with Nixon's order and fired Cox.[/quote]
The truth will set them free...
"Judith Levine, writing in The Village Voice, offered support for these ideas in an article titled "Stop the Wedding: Why Gay Marriage Isn't Radical Enough." She wrote, "Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals on the ark. But it doesn't have to be that way. [u]In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.' Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders[/u]."
Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, summed up the situation in a recent Weekly Standard article. He noted that [u]if gay marriage is legalized, "marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three or more individuals (however weakly or temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female[/u] ... the bottom of this slope is visible from where we now stand."
We must all become soberly aware of a deeply disturbing reality: [b]The homosexual agenda is not marriage for gays. It is marriage for no one. And despite what you read or see in the media, it is definitely not monogamous[/b].
What will happen sociologically if marriage becomes anything or everything or nothing? The short answer is that the State will lose its compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriage has been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit. [u]With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it[/u]."
With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, and much more) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. [b]Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law[/b]. This is clearly where the movement is headed. If you doubt that this is the motive, read what is in the literature today. Activists have created a new word to replace the outmoded terms infidelity, adultery, cheating and promiscuity. The new concept is [b]POLYAMOROUS[/b]. It means the same thing (literally "many loves") but with the agreement of the primary sexual partner. Why not? He or she is probably polyamorous, too.
Liberal columnist Michael Kinsley wrote a July 2003 op-ed piece in The Washington Post titled, [b]"Abolish Marriage: Let's Really Get the Government Out Of Our Bedrooms."[/b] In this revealing editorial, Kinsley writes, [u]"[The] solution is to end the institution of marriage[/u], or rather, the solution is to end the institution of government monopoly on marriage. And yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let 'em. If you and your government aren't implicated, what do you care? [u]If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriages would become irrelevant[/u]." Otherwise, the author warns, "it's going to get ugly."
http://www.focusaction.org/Articles/A000000022.cfm
Really? Why would you say that?
But hey, what do I know...
RBB,
Its the sheer volume of everything else you don't know that ought to be troubling you.