I knew it...

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Republicans are not opposed to big government. Rather, they just support having a Big Christian Government.

Well this is sarcasm but they can regulate it under the interstate commerce clause. Of course what I really think is both are stuipd.

 

[zsdersw]

Rape is not a federal crime nor is it illegalized in the constitution; should we have no laws against it?

Rape is a threat to one's right to life and liberty, so yes.. laws against it are proper.

Alternatively, I would argue that legislation offering a reasonable education is essential to the right to pursue happiness.

It may be, but presuming that it needs to be codified in government and law ignores the obvious fact that it would happen anyway. Parents would want their children to have a good education.. and the market would provide.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"Legislating morality", whether out of love or shame, is using the full force and credit of government to essentially say: "government knows best"... when the truth is that none of us is as dumb as all of us or a majority of us.

Beyond the constitutionally set standard of ensuring the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, government has no role legislating morality.

I don't support banning gay marriage, but there's support for forcing people to buy healthcare or have money taken from them. That's called theft, but it's "moral" if it does.

BTW, you have Constitution FAIL.

 

[Bird222]

Why don't gay people just become strait and not have to worry about people being bias against them? Choosing to be gay seems really illogical; even if they are born with a homosexual predilection, wouldn't it make more sense to 'bight the bullet' and just pretend to be hetero?

Question: How easy would it be for you to turn gay? By your logic it seems it shouldn't be too hard. Let us know how that first cocksucking goes for ya.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't support banning gay marriage, but there's support for forcing people to buy healthcare or have money taken from them. That's called theft, but it's "moral" if it does.

BTW, you have Constitution FAIL.

Explain.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Explain.

Beyond the constitutionally set standard of ensuring the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, government has no role legislating morality.

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

 

[piasabird]

I never told anyone to be Gay.

 

[zsdersw]

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

The definition of "constitutionally" is a bit broader than just "the Constitution". I intentionally didn't use a capital "C".

Synonyms include: congenitally, naturally, inherently, innately, intrinsically. Aren't inherent and intrinsic rights what the Declaration of Independence is about?

 

[zsdersw]

I never told anyone to be Gay.

And how is that relevant?

 

[CallMeJoe]

The definition of "constitutionally" is a bit broader than just "the Constitution". I intentionally didn't use a capital "C".

Got it.
The constitution includes anything you want to throw in there, regardless of what's actually in the Constitution.

A true Strict Constructionist.

 

[zsdersw]

Got it.
The constitution includes anything you want to throw in there, regardless of what's actually in the Constitution.

A true Strict Constructionist.

 

[her209]

Beyond the constitutionally set standard of ensuring the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, government has no role legislating morality.

What if I want to kill myself because of I have a chronic illness? Shouldn't I be allowed to seek help to do so instead of blowing my brains out or swallowing a bunch of pills which may fail.

 

[Mursilis]

... that the GOP wouldn't stick to cleaning up our fiscal mess

That's why they're the "Lesser Evil" party. They're rarely elected on their own merits; rather, they win sometimes when the Dems screw up big time and the GOP looks better by comparison.

 

[zsdersw]

What if I want to kill myself because of I have a chronic illness? Shouldn't I be allowed to seek help to do so instead of blowing my brains out or swallowing a bunch of pills which may fail.

I'm not convinced there's any basis for denying anyone the right to end their own life. The issue would, to me, hinge upon the question of whose life is it; who owns it and, as such, can determine what is done with it. I'm of the belief that each of us are the masters and owners of our own lives... and can do with them what we want.. even end it, if we so desire.

 

[werepossum]

I absolutely detest the term "social conservatives" for it is both false and a misnomer. It has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism in any regard, it is purely legislating morality and authoritarism.

I'd have a lot more respect for Ron Paul, Rand Paul and their libertarian ilk if they would stand up strong and loud against this sort of BS instead of covertly (and sometimes overtly) supporting it.

Personally I'm still waiting for the GOP to even to both to address their core issue-jobs, jobs, jobs-much less actually even doing anything about it. So far all we are getting is reruns of the same old tired GOP tactics.

Agreed. To be truly a proponent of smaller, less intrusive federal government requires that one argue against ALL forms of authoritarianism and unnecessary government empowerment, not merely those that gore one's own ox. Also, there's a truism that when liberals see a program they don't like they demand it be taken off the air, whereas when conservatives see a program they don't like they simply turn the channel. When that behavior is in real life, that generalization turns around; conservatives become less able to tolerate behavior they find abhorrent than are liberals or even progressives. The absolute worst, most appalling opinion I hear is "I don't care what gays do, but I still think gay marriage should be banned." If our standard is to allow government control over things we don't care about, we're all screwed. All of us care about something that the majority does not, unless we are very dull folks.

"Legislating morality", whether out of love or shame, is using the full force and credit of government to essentially say: "government knows best"... when the truth is that none of us is as dumb as all of us or a majority of us.

Beyond the constitutionally set standard of ensuring the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, government has no role legislating morality.

Rape is not a federal crime nor is it illegalized in the constitution; should we have no laws against it?

Alternatively, I would argue that legislation offering a reasonable education is essential to the right to pursue happiness.

These are both good arguments. I too have a problem with the term "legislating morality" as supposedly all our laws are based on our collective morality. But if we all agree to define "legislating morality" as making laws that prohibit something (or mandate something) that does not directly affect us - enforcing or prohibiting behavior simply because we find it desirable or abhorrent rather than because it is directly affecting some disinterested third party - then the term remains useful. Granted that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not enshrined in the text of the Constitution, but I agree that the purpose of the Constitution is to establish the framework for ensuring those rights granted by G-d and protected by governments formed by men as spelled out in general terms in the Declaration of Independence and the preamble. In fact, had the Founding Fathers managed to enshrine more of these two documents into the Constitution itself, our country would have been better off. ("ALL men are created equal" springs to mind, and the "unpleasantries between the States" which might have been avoided had those framers in opposition to slavery insisted that our laws be in agreement with what we proclaim as granted by G-d.)

 

[BoberFett]

Republican stupidity as usual. Why can't those assclowns ignore this kind of pointless bullshit and actually be the small government party they claim to be? Lying pieces of shit. It's too bad the only viable alternative are also lying pieces of shit. Again, this is why I'm a libertarian. Big government is shit no matter who runs it.

 

[nick1985]

Stupid. Let people marry who they want.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Indeed. You use "constitution" instead of "Constitution" and then use that non-existent document in what is at least partial justification. Using the other sides logic, getting married can involve movements between states and therefore is perfectly proper for the government to control. Of course I don't buy that argument at all in either case, but when it suits someone they trot that out to suit them. Maybe that's in the "constitution" too.

There is no "pursuit of happiness" in the real Constitution implied or otherwise. If you life sucks it is not up to the government to make you happy.

 

[zsdersw]

Indeed. You use "constitution" instead of "Constitution" and then use that non-existent document in what is at least partial justification.

"constitutionally" does not necessarily refer to "the Constitution" like "Constitutionally" does when it's not the first word of a sentence.

There is no "pursuit of happiness" in the real Constitution implied or otherwise.

Not very true at all. The Declaration of Independence was the promise; the Constitution was the fulfillment.

If you life sucks it is not up to the government to make you happy.

Indeed, but we all have the freedom to seek happiness.

 

[Mursilis]

Republican stupidity as usual. Why can't those assclowns ignore this kind of pointless bullshit and actually be the small government party they claim to be?

Because deep down, most of the sheeple are afraid of true freedom, and the responsibility it requires.

 

[werepossum]

Indeed. You use "constitution" instead of "Constitution" and then use that non-existent document in what is at least partial justification. Using the other sides logic, getting married can involve movements between states and therefore is perfectly proper for the government to control. Of course I don't buy that argument at all in either case, but when it suits someone they trot that out to suit them. Maybe that's in the "constitution" too.

There is no "pursuit of happiness" in the real Constitution implied or otherwise. If you life sucks it is not up to the government to make you happy.

Agreed, but government should also never get in the way of your pursuit of happiness without a damned good, compelling societal reason. A need to build a hospital is a good, compelling societal reason to take your land with compensation; a potential for increased tax revenue if a rich person owns your land (a la Kelo v. New London) is NOT a good, compelling societal reason to take your land with or without compensation. The need to protect six year old children is a good, compelling societal reason to deny your choice of spouse; that someone will be offended if your "wife" has a pecker is NOT a good, compelling societal reason to deny your choice of spouse.

Not that you or I disagree about these things.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Not very true at all. The Declaration of Independence was the promise; the Constitution was the fulfillment.

The Revolution and the Articles of Confederation were the fulfillment of the Declaration of Independence; the Constitution was the Thermidorian Reaction to the Revolution.

 

[zsdersw]

The Revolution and the Articles of Confederation were the fulfillment of the Declaration of Independence; the Constitution was the Thermidorian Reaction to the Revolution.

That's one way to look at it.