Santorum Opposes Tea Party Republicans

Santorum Opposes Tea Party Republicans

Rick Santorum, in his own words…

[vsw id=”vLQnoVpkyqc” source=”youtube” width=”425″ height=”344″ autoplay=”no”]

Rick Santorum opposes Libertarians
“I fight very strongly against libertarian influence in the Republican Party…”

Rick Santorum opposes the Tea Party
“I’ve got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party, and the Tea Party movement, to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it…”

Rick Santorum loves pork barrel spending
“I am not someone, as you know, if you follow my career, who believes earmarks are necessarily a bad thing…”

Rick Santorum is your Big Government Republican.  He is vocally and publicly against Libertarians and Tea Party Republicans.  His stances on social issues alienate Independents and help unite Democrats.

The GOP will lose to Obama if Santorum is the nominee. Why?  Three reasons.

One.  Because Santorum will fracture the Republican Party and he will cause Democrats to unite.

Two. Inability to properly organize and raise the necessary money to combat Obama’s billion dollars.

Three.  Since July 2010, Santorum has beat Obama in only 1 poll of 19… and by only 1 point.  Obama bests Santorum 95% of the time, by an average of 9 points.  McCain Déjà vu.


It’s not rocket science.  And the fact that the Daily Kos has decided to help Santorum beat Romney in the primary should speak louder than anything anyone in the GOP has ever heard.

A vote for Santorum is a vote for Obama.

Share This Post

104 Responses to "Santorum Opposes Tea Party Republicans"

  1. Santorum is right. Libertarians stray as far from the truth as liberals. They are not conservatives. They are anarchists. Both Santorum & Newt are true conservatives. They believe in right sized gov. Lib want too much gov & libertarians want too little gov. Libertarian RINOs are even worse than lib ones. They need to get out of the Party go back to the hole they came out of.

    Reply
    1. Also libertarians aren’t true Tea Partiers either. They’re TPINOs. They’re not content with ruining the Republican Party but now they want to ruin The Tea Party too. Go back to your own party & stay there.

      Reply
    2. Great plan… isolate Republicans to the 15-25% of all Americans, then try to win an election. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

      You choose Big Government Republicans to Big Tent Republicans. You choose large centralized government to federalism. You choose deficit and debt to fiscal conservatism. You choose tyranny to liberty.

      No thanks.

      Reply
  2. He also wants to let the states decide whether or not to ban birth control. Seriously, in Santorum’s America, there would be states where people could get fined or even imprisoned for using birth control, or for selling birth control, or even distributing INFORMATION about birth control.

    Seriously, that’s what Griswold v. Connecticut put an end to, and that’s what Santorum wants to overturn. Use a condom, go to jail. Give out a pamphlet ABOUT condoms, go to jail. Santorum’s fine with that.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/santorum-explains-06-loss-still-supports-state-right-to-outlaw-contraception/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    But apparently this doesn’t bother you as much as that he opposed the Tea Party and pork barrel spending.

    Reply
    1. My problem with that is that Santorum is feigning being a federalist. Federalism is the right way to go. Let the states decide everything that is not written in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and its Amendments. The problem is the Santorum is just the right wing version of the left wing Obama… they both embrace large centralized governing. They both want the federal government to nurture you — to fix your problems — and with that comes bigger government, more spending, higher taxes, waste, and less liberty. And to that, I say no thanks.

      Reply
      1. Huh? He’s saying LET THE STATES DECIDE ABOUT CONTRACEPTION. He couldn’t be more clearer on that. Here’s the quote re: banning contraception from his Jake Tapper interview:

        “The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that,” he said. “It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That’s the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court–they are creating rights, and it should be left up to the people to decide.”

        a) How is that about “large centralized governing”?

        b) Even if it were…Seriously, THAT’S your problem with that? NOT that there would be states where people could be jailed for using condoms or giving out INFORMATION about condoms? You really, genuinely can’t bring yourself to say “Yes, that’s kind of messed up”?

        Cause that’s kind of messed up.

        c) You know what ELSE would lead to more spending, higher taxes, and less liberty, not to mention higher poverty, higher crime, higher prison population, higher unemployment, and general over-population?

        IF SOME STATES BANNED CONTRACEPTIVES.

        Tell you what, Tim:

        Just post the words “I also disagree with Rick Santorum on the contraceptive issue. I am against leaving the choice up to the states.” And I solemnly vow not to comment on your columns for the next three months. Not a single word.

        Seriously, how hard could that be? YOU DON’T EVEN LIKE THE GUY.

        Deal?

        Reply
        1. You have a problem with reading comprehension. I wrote, “My problem with that is that Santorum is feigning being a federalist.”

          You attack Santorum on his stance on issues that he wants the federal government to control and you applaud Obama for his stance on issues he wants the federal government to control. You fail to realize the bigger picture… maybe the federal government ought not be involved in many of these issues one way or the other. Less government is better. Local governing is better. Both Santorum and Obama are wrong.

          That’s why advocate for smaller government types like Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan, Calvin Coolidge, etc. And why I oppose large government types like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Carter and Obama. It’s why I advocate for federalism, capitalism and republicanism and oppose socialism, communism and fascism. It’s why I espouse the views of Libertarians, Tea Partiers and Republicans. And why I oppose the views hippies, occupoopers and Democrats.

          It’s the difference between you and me.

          Reply
  3. >>You attack Santorum on his stance on issues that he wants the federal government to control

    Something is really getting lost in the translation here. Where have I attacked Santorum on issues that he wants the federal government to control? I am attacking Santorum on an issue that he wants the federal government to NOT control. I am attacking Santorum on an issue that he wants the STATE governments to control.

    I know you know how to read, so I’m pretty sure you’re comprehending that and are just trying to create a smokescreen of confusion for your legion of simpleton fans, but your idea of a smokescreen is utterly transparent.

    Once more, so it couldn’t possibly be more clear:

    SANTORUM WANTS TO LET THE STATES DECIDE ABOUT CONTRACEPTION.

    NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE STATES.

    HE WANTS STATES TO BE ABLE TO BAN CONTRACEPTION IF THEY WANT TO.

    And here’s what’s weird about this:

    YOU are going to an awful lot of trouble to avoid commenting on this, other than to state vaguely that “Local government is better.” (which implies approval of the Santorum view) What is one to think?

    Either:

    a) You’re okay with this. In which case, you’re as demented as he is; or

    b) You’re not okay with this, you’re just too much of a wuss to say “Yes, I agree with liberals and any reasonable person that contraception should not be allowed to be banned in any states, because it’s a pretty basic human right of privacy that you should be allowed to wear a goddamn condom or take the goddamn Pill if you want to.”

    Okay, I’ll bite. Which is it?

    Reply
  4. Local governing is the best governing. If the some red states want to ban contraception, let them. If some blue state wants to ban plastic bags, let them. You may disagree with one and not the other… and Santorum may agree with one and not the other. The beauty of it being at the state level is that there is no centralized bureaucracy at the federal level imposing their will on both red and blue states that makes everyone unhappy with this or that.

    But again, Santorum feigns being a federalist… he says “state, state, state…” but his record is closer to that of Obama. They both want to impose their wills on everyone through the strong arm of federal law. When both are wrong.

    You want my personal opinion… I don’t like banning much of anything. I am more Libertarian in that way. I have a few exceptions that don’t necessarily jive with my Libertarian side, but I am front about it. Do I want to ban contraception? No. Do I think Santorum does? No. I think we’ve already hashed through this before. I’ve provided you with his quotes saying he does not wish to ban contraception. You dismiss them because they don’t fit into your narrative. You want that to be the issue with Santorum. That’s not the issue. The issue with Santorum is that he is the right wing version of Obama. And they are both bad.

    Reply
  5. >>If the some red states want to ban contraception, let them.

    Thank you for admitting that. Now I can tell you how fucking crazy that is. The clock would be turned back fifty years, people would be once again jailed for using contraceptives, and you’re okay with that. Hoards of unwanted pregnancies would happen in those states, unemployment and crime and homelessness and general over-population would skyrocket, as would taxes and the need for social safety net programs, but you, despite hating all that, would shrug your shoulders and say “Local government is better.”

    But again: Thank you for admitting it.

    >>The beauty of it being at the state level is that there is no centralized bureaucracy at the federal level imposing their will on both red and blue states that makes everyone unhappy with this or that.

    Which basically misses the whole point of the “UNITED” part of “United States.” The idea is that we’re this ONE BIG COUNTRY that has a set of general rules that governs over us all, and then each state can differ from each other on smaller issues. Seriously, man, is there NOTHING the federal government should be able to say “This law covers ALL of you”? Interracial marriage? Sexual/racial discrimination? Slavery? I mean, honestly, once you’re okay with states banning contraception, for fuck’s sake, what DOESN’T stay on the table?

    >>But again, Santorum feigns being a federalist… he says “state, state, state…” but his record is closer to that of Obama. They both want to impose their wills on everyone through the strong arm of federal law. When both are wrong.

    Fantastic. You, realizing how embarrassing it is for you to agree with Santorum on this issue that the only way for you to save face is to change the subject and criticize him for the exact OPPOSITE of what he’s being on this issue. “Yes, I agree with Santorum SAYING that the states should decide this, but that’s only because he’s only PRETENDING to feel that way, so I disagree with how he REALLY feels.” Fucking brilliant. You crack me up.

    >>I’ve provided you with his quotes saying he does not wish to ban contraception. You dismiss them because they don’t fit into your narrative.

    I’m not dismissing them (though they smell an awful lot like back-pedaling to me), it’s that they are rendered moot by his stance that he’s made VERY clear, that he wishes to leave the decision UP TO THE STATES, which is tantamount to saying that he’s fine with contraception being banned IN SOME STATES if they want to. And apparently so are YOU. And I repeat: That’s fucking crazy.

    >>The issue with Santorum is that he is the right wing version of Obama. And they are both bad.

    The only thing on this thread you’ve said that makes any sense at all is that Santorum is bad. We just differ on the details.

    You think he’s bad because he’s not a Tea Partier and he’s against pork barrel spending.

    I think he’s bad because, among other things, he’d be okay with some states throwing people in jail for using condoms.

    And one final time: Thank you for admitting that you would be too. It’s genuinely brave to admit something that embarrassing and shameful about your views.

    Reply
  6. First, you are putting words in my mouth because your reading comprehension is so poor. Re-read my comments before you type another word. Either that or be an idiot. Your choice.

    You seriously have a problem with local governing?! If so, you clearly have a disrespect for people determining their own existence and future. You think that everything YOU think is right, just and correct. You think that that what YOU decide is the right way for all people to live… and that it should be imposed via threat of fine and/or imprisonment. You couldn’t be more of a pompous self-righteous arrogant tyrannical jackass. Talk about hubris…

    Reply
  7. >>First, you are putting words in my mouth because your reading comprehension is so poor. Re-read my comments before you type another word. Either that or be an idiot. Your choice.

    I did. You said:

    “If the some red states want to ban contraception, let them.”

    End of story. Everything else is gravy.

    >>You seriously have a problem with local governing?!

    Idiotic argumentative tactic.

    A: I have a problem with some states making rape legal.
    B: You have a problem with local governing!?

    Tim, what I have a problem with is some states taking away what the Constitution and the Supreme Court have already determined are FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. Do I have a problem with, say, GAMBLING being legal in some states and not in others? No. The right for two adults to have protected sex? YES, Tim, I have a problem with ANY state in my union having laws that flagrantly invasive.

    >>You think that everything YOU think is right, just and correct. You think that that what YOU decide is the right way for all people to live… and that it should be imposed via threat of fine and/or imprisonment.

    Wha?? I’M the one doing that? You’re fucking insane.

    I’M the one arguing for people’s continued rights, no matter what state they live in, TO WEAR A CONDOM.

    YOU are the one shrugging your shoulders and saying “It’s up to the states! Local government is better! If they want to jail people for wearing condoms, so be it!”

    >>You couldn’t be more of a pompous self-righteous arrogant tyrannical jackass. Talk about hubris…

    You’re making absolutely no sense now. You’re just rambling. I’M the one being tyrannical? The tyranny of…the freedom of protected sex? The tyranny of not going to jail for wearing a condom?

    Do you even know what “tyranny” means? Put it this way:

    Country A has certain parts of it where people are thrown in jail for using birth control.

    Country B has no such laws because it believes that adults have a fundamental right to privacy with regard to such issues.

    The tyrannical one?

    It ain’t Country B.

    Reply
  8. I also said, “If some blue state wants to ban plastic bags, let them.” Neither are a reflection on my personal beliefs. Seriously, you have issues.

    Take your Big Government ideas and take a hike!

    Reply
    1. >>I also said, “If some blue state wants to ban plastic bags, let them.” Neither are a reflection on my personal beliefs.

      You’re not getting it. I don’t know HOW you could not be getting it, because it’s in pretty plain English and relatively simple words, but you’re still not getting it.

      No one is saying you think contraceptives should be banned.

      No one is saying you think plastic bags should be banned.

      But YOU are saying, quite loud and clear, that you would be okay with LEAVING IT UP TO THE STATES if they want to ban contraceptives.

      And that’s odious and crazy. For about a hundred different reasons that I’ve already listed. Even if it’s just ONE state, even just a tiny one, it’s still sickening, at least to anyone with a soul, to think that we’d be living in a country where someone could be prosecuted, fined and jailed for USING A CONTRACEPTIVE. You really don’t see how insane that is? How backwards and oppressive and invasive it is? And you really don’t see the reverberations it would have? The damage it would do? The results being a massive INCREASE in everything you guys profess to be against so vehemently?

      I notice you never answered my question of whether or not there’s any line you’d ever draw about this whole “state’s rights” thing. Seriously, if you’re so against the notion of “big government” making these rules that all the states have to follow, are there even ANY you’re okay with? Is there ANYTHING AT ALL that if a state wanted to ban, you wouldn’t say “Okay, wait, that’s taking it a little too far”?

      Only two possibilities here, Tim:

      If your answer is “No, the states should be able to ban whatever the fuck they want, across the board”, than you’re truly insane, even more so than I thought.

      If your answer is “Yes, there are some basic human rights that are sacrosanct and should be allowed by all the states”…then fine. We agree on that, and I submit that the right for two consenting adults to have protected sex falls into that category. You apparently disagree. Which is equally insane.

      So okay, I’m all ears. Which is it, Tim?

      Which brand of insane are you?

      Reply
        1. Nor am I. But it’s such a hilarious catch-phrase, I can understand how irresistible you find it.

          And way to respond to the argument! You’re so good at this! I love it. The guy who can’t even bring himself to say that American adults should have the right to have protected sex without getting jailed for it…which pits him against about 99.999999% of the country…is calling the DEFENDER of this right the crazy one. O, irony! You are so very much alive.

          Atta boy, Tim! Doing great!

          Reply
  9. Incidentally, for what it’s worth, I think it possible that you’re not actually insane, you just haven’t thought this through, mostly because it probably wouldn’t affect you personally. Even if it WERE left up to the states, there’s no way California would ever ban contraception (because all those goddamn liberals you hate so much would never let it happen), so you’re not worried about it.

    You’re fine with it happening in some little state on the other side of the country where you don’t know anyone. You haven’t actually pictured getting arrested tried, fined, and/or jailed for having protected sex with your wife, haven’t wondered how you’d actually feel about that. It wouldn’t happen to YOU or any friends of yours, so you don’t give a shit.

    So there’s your out, if you want it. It’s not that you’re insane, it’s just that you’re a self-centered douchebag incapable of empathy.

    Is that better?

    Reply
  10. “That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free…”

    –The Emancipation Proclamation, 1863

    “Local government is better!”

    –Tim Ross, 2012

    Reply
  11. Man, you are something else.

    “After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

    – Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 1919

    Why is local governing better?

    Because 100% of the population is affected by national laws, without escape, whether they like it or not. Like prohibition. Like slavery. Like Obamacare. Like DOMA. Like Drug Control Policy. Like Roe v Wade (not even a law). Etc. Red state people don’t want Obamacare. Blue state people don’t want the DOMA. And so on. You want both states to swallow pills neither want… because you embrace a large centralized government that thinks it knows better for states and local communities than they do.

    Let me try and express it to you this way… At least with slavery — and don’t twist my words to make me sound like I am pro-slavery because I am 100% opposed to slavery (how sad that I even have to make you understand that) — it was governed at the state level and between 1780 and 1804 the northern states passed laws which brought an end to slavery within their borders, but not immediately – the process was gradual. There were still a few slaves in New Jersey in 1865, when the Civil War ended. The legal end came in New York in 1827, Connecticut in 1848, Rhode Island in 1842. If it were a protected legal right to own slaves at the federal level, then slavery would’ve continued in all these states until probably 1863 or even later.

    In your world view, it would’ve been better for slavery to persist in the northern states until another national law came along to correct it (like the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution that ended prohibition 1933).

    A republican form of government is better. Local governing is better. Federalism is better. Yes. Yes. Yes. I stand by those statements and that belief system.

    You can stand by yours: Local governing is bad because the vast majority of the population isn’t smart enough to make political decisions so they need some D.C. bureaucrats to be their nanny and make decisions for them. You probably love unfettered democracy (aka mob rule) too, huh?

    Reply
  12. >>Because 100% of the population is affected by national laws, without escape, whether they like it or not.

    Yes, because some laws SHOULD be national. Not ALL of them. SOME. That’s what the Constitution DOES, it declares what America…ALL of America…is all about, what principles it stands on. That’s why it doesn’t say “Every state for himself!” Because we’re all ONE COUNTRY, see, so while the states are allowed to differ in all sorts of ways, there are CERTAIN THINGS that unite us ALL. That’s where the “UNITED” comes from in UNITED STATES. I can’t believe you actually need me to explain this to you.

    So (AGAIN, I explain, surely in vain…) what falls under the umbrella of meriting FEDERAL law? FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. It’s really not that complicated. Certain things are just BASIC RIGHTS, NO EXCEPTIONS, DOESN’T MATTER WHAT FUCKING STATE YOU’RE IN. It’s THAT SIMPLE.

    Again: You either believe that the right to have protected sex falls into that category, or you don’t.

    If you do, then the idea that some states should be allowed to ban contraceptives (as Santorum does) should be abhorrent to you.

    If you don’t, then you’re as insane and fascist as he is.

    And as we’ve already learned, you don’t. So there ya go.

    >>At least with slavery — and don’t twist my words to make me sound like I am pro-slavery because I am 100% opposed to slavery (how sad that I even have to make you understand that)

    You’re so fucking bad at this. Tim, NO ONE is trying to make you sound like you’re pro-slavery. The point is that slavery holds up as a pretty strong example where, in spite of the facts that some states wanted it legal, it clearly merited being made NOT legal by FEDERAL LAW.

    If you agree with that, then you agree that, yes indeedy, there actually ARE such things, so maybe local government isn’t ALWAYS so fine n’ dandy.

    If you don’t agree with that…Well, just say so. We’re all ears.

    >>In your world view, it would’ve been better for slavery to persist in the northern states until another national law came along to correct it (like the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution that ended prohibition 1933).

    I swear, it’s fascinating how your mind works, that it manages to spit the complete opposite of the truth out so consistently.

    No, Tim, that’s not my world view. My world view is that slavery is one of those things that merits having a national ban against it. I don’t care if there are states out there right now as we speak where every single inhabitant of them believes slavery should be legal again. It should be illegal ACROSS THE BOARD. Wanna know why? Because we’re all AMERICANS, and I don’t want to live in a country where slavery is illegal ANYWHERE IN IT.

    Whereas, YOUR world view is: “Let the states decide everything! Local government good, big government bad!”

    Okay, tell that to the slaves.

    >>Local governing is bad because the vast majority of the population isn’t smart enough to make political decisions so they need some D.C. bureaucrats to be their nanny and make decisions for them.

    No one’s saying that. (Jesus, you’re bad at this!) The point is (AGAIN!) that there are some basic, fundamental rights. The Constitution is based on those rights. The Bill of Rights spells out many of them. The U.S. Supreme Court is called upon to make decisions about whether certain state laws violate them.

    Among those rights is a RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

    Like the right for two consenting adults to have sex, with or without protection.

    Again: If you agree that that’s a basic, fundamental right we all deserve, then it stands to reason that you agree that no states should have the right to ban it.

    If you don’t agree with that…just say so. Stop with these tangents and backwards arguments. Just say “I don’t believe that protected sex is a fundamental right.” Because that’s what you’d be saying if you’re agreeing with Santorum on this. That is what HE is saying.

    Go ahead and say it. We’ll be right here.

    Can’t wait.

    Reply
  13. >>I don’t want to live in a country where slavery is illegal ANYWHERE IN IT.

    Sorry, typo, obviously. “where slavery is LEGAL anywhere in it”, that should read.

    Reply
    1. The problem is that your terrible education hasn’t prepared you well enough for conversations like this one. You want to equate national laws with the Bill of Rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution. You want to equate natural law with civil law. That is why you think equally of slavery and something like prohibition.

      “Unalienable rights” are those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to another person or entity, such as the government. Our Founders refer to these as “natural” or “God-given” rights (you know, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”). The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government’s power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

      “Inalienable rights” are those rights that can only be transferred with the consent of the person possessing those rights. They are not inherent in man and can be alienated by state government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights. Citizens, by way of social contract with their state government, abide by the civil laws created by their representatives.

      The inclusion of “inalienable rights” in our country’s founding documents was debated and ultimately the Founders decided against it and to only include “unalienable rights.” That is why our Declaration of Independence reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

      The federal government is mainly in the business of natural law. The state government is mainly in the business of civil law. Unfortunately, this concept, over time, has become perverted. We can give thanks to certain Presidents over time such as John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Carter and Obama as well as a couple “progressive” Republicans (Teddy Roosevelt and Taft) who have all blurred the line. They ignore the first few articles noted in the Articles of Confederation, the original U.S. Constitution, which state, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” It cannot be any more plain than that… states have sovereignty, freedom and independence.

      What is sovereignty? It is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory or a state. It is the states which have sovereignty. The states get to decide how best to govern themselves. It is the ultimate protection from tyranny in its various forms such an oligarchy to a plutarchy to a meritarchy to a technoarchy… and so on.

      So, when you say, “My world view is that slavery is one of those things that merits having a national ban against it.” That begs the question… what else do you find to have the merits of having a national ban? And who is the arbiter of such decisions? What if one of these decisions is something YOU disagree with? Or do you consider yourself the most intelligent, responsible and omnipotent person in the United States that only you know what is best for everyone else? Can you respect a national ban on something if the majority of Americans agree with it and you don’t? What if the majority of Americans were opposed to contraception (they probably are opposed to tax-payer funded contraception)? What about DOMA? And isn’t it scary to have one central authority to be the ultimate arbiter of things that affect so many? Your trust in a central authority is scary. One day that central authority is on your side, the next day they are not.

      To ignore the U.S. Constitution — the notion that inalienable rights exist at the state level due to their inherent right to sovereignty — is to invite a form of imperialism. You think it is fine because there are a handful of positive examples where national laws have banned certain activities in the name of “social justice.” But you fail to recognize the flip side of the argument. It is precisely the combination of a large centralized government’s ability to impose national laws in the name of “social justice” that paved the path to Fascism.

      The bottom line is that U.S. federal government does not have the right or the jurisdiction, according to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to ban anything (except to ban itself from certain activities — as it should be). In fact, it has a duty to protect my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By contrast, each individual state, by the authority vested upon them from the U.S. Constitution, has the sovereignty to enter into the social contract with its citizens to shape behavior through a process that allows the legal transfer such consent.

      Because we are such a diverse nation, it stands to reason that more Americans will be happier with local governing than they would be with federal governing. That is better for society as a whole.

      And just the record is straight… you continue to put words in my mouth and suggest I believe something that I don’t. Example: “Again: You either believe that the right to have protected sex falls into that category, or you don’t. If you do, then the idea that some states should be allowed to ban contraceptives (as Santorum does) should be abhorrent to you. If you don’t, then you’re as insane and fascist as he is. And as we’ve already learned, you don’t.” You are saying I don’t believe people should have a right to protected sex. That is simply untrue. I’ll repeat what I wrote above in an early part of the thread, “You want my personal opinion… I don’t like banning much of anything. I am more Libertarian in that way. I have a few exceptions that don’t necessarily jive with my Libertarian side, but I am front about it. Do I want to ban contraception? No.” Can you read that? I think it is really clear… so clear a 5 year old could understand it. Why can’t you?!

      Seriously, your reading comprehension is terrible.

      Reply
      1. >>“My world view is that slavery is one of those things that merits having a national ban against it.” That begs the question… what else do you find to have the merits of having a national ban?

        No, it doesn’t, because banning slavery is kind of a no-brainer. You reacting so startled that I think slavery should have a national ban actually begs the question, “Um…Don’t YOU?”

        >>And who is the arbiter of such decisions? What if one of these decisions is something YOU disagree with?

        Jesus, Tim, now what? You’re trying to suggest that because I stated my opinion, I somehow think that I’m omnipotent and my opinion rules over all? You completely MISstated my view, and I corrected you. You’re so bad at this. This is all just a smokescreen to distract from the fact that you actually said you’re okay with some states banning contraception. No one’s buying it.

        >>Can you respect a national ban on something if the majority of Americans agree with it and you don’t? What if the majority of Americans were opposed to contraception?

        Then this country would be a complete and total wreck, economically and otherwise, and I wouldn’t be living here. Nor would any sane, free-thinking person.

        >>To ignore the U.S. Constitution — the notion that inalienable rights exist at the state level due to their inherent right to sovereignty — is to invite a form of imperialism. You think it is fine because there are a handful of positive examples where national laws have banned certain activities in the name of “social justice.”

        Sorry, no. Nowhere have I made the argument to ignore the Constitution. This is you getting shit backwards again. It’s just uncanny. I’m the guy pointing TO the Constitution and arguing FOR it, because the Constitution is the one that lays out the powers of the FEDERAL government. YOU are the one saying “Fuck the Federal government and give all the power to the STATES.” YOU are the one who is arguing for each to state to essentially be its own country. YOU are the one who’s saying that what they do in Alabama should be up to the Alabamans and no one else. I’M the one saying, no, see, because WE’RE ALL AMERICANS, so if they ban contraception, a) It’s still MY COUNTRY that they just banned a basic freedom in, and b) When their economy goes to shit as a result, it’s still going to be MY (and your) tax dollars going to help them out.

        THAT is the difference between you and me. I actually think this stuff through a step further than “I’m not in Alabama, so let them do whatever the fuck they want.”

        >>You are saying I don’t believe people should have a right to protected sex. That is simply untrue.

        JESUS CHRIST, YOU ARE SO BAD AT THIS. Once more: If you are okay with a state banning contraception, then you are SHRUGGING OFF the right to have protective sex. You’re saying you’re OKAY with it being banned. Not SUPPORTIVE of it, necessarily, but you’re fine with it being taken away.

        Again: Odious. And insane.

        >>I’ll repeat what I wrote above in an early part of the thread, “You want my personal opinion… I don’t like banning much of anything.

        But you’ve made no argument AGAINST banning contraception. You’re OKAY WITH IT. That’s what I’m saying you’re saying, because THAT’S WHAT YOU’RE SAYING. And that’s what’s gross.

        >>I am more Libertarian in that way.

        Yeah, no, an actual Libertarian would be pretty firmly AGAINST a ban on contraception. He’d probably lose his shpadoinkle over it, not just shrug and say “Local government is better!”

        >>Do I want to ban contraception? No.” Can you read that? I think it is really clear… so clear a 5 year old could understand it. Why can’t you?!

        And I already responded to this with “NO ONE IS SAYING YOU WANT TO BAN CONTRACEPTION.” Why can’t YOU read THAT? Again, this is just a smokescreen. I point out how demented and wrong it is that you’re okay with the states having the CHOICE to ban contraception, and you indignantly say “I don’t want to ban contraception!”

        I don’t know how to say it any clearer, I really don’t. I’ve already said it about ten times, and I know you get it, you’re just hoping that you can confuse the other readers out there (and given the intelligence level of this site as a whole, who could blame you, really?).

        One last time:

        I am not saying you want to ban contraception.

        YOU are saying you want to let states ban contraception if they want to.

        I am saying that two adult people in this country should have the basic fundamental human right to have protected sex.

        YOU are saying that if they live in a state that banned it, too fucking bad for them.

        And I’m saying that’s a sickening scenario that would set the clock back about 50 years and cause a whole lot of things that even CONSERVATIVES hate to sky-rocket.

        And you’re still saying “Local government is better!”

        And trying desperately to distract from the fact that you’re not saying what you’re saying, because deep down, you know how demented and fascist it is.

        But again: No one’s buying it.

        Nice try.

        Reply
        1. You want to ban slavery at the national level because you believe it is an inalienable right and that the federal government has the authority of inalienable right. It’s not. Liberty is an unalienable right… just as Thomas Jefferson envisioned. Unfortunately, for the colonies to come together against Britain, specific language that would end slavery was omitted and it was trusted to the states. As many of the Founders hoped for, slavery in this nation did end… it came first at the hand of the states and then it was clarified, through the amendment process, at the federal level. Why the Liberty of blacks was not provided at the onset was a necessary mistake in our nation’s history. “Necessary” because we’d all be bowing to the Queen right now if not, and a “mistake” because the rationale at the time was that slaves were not “men” or citizens; however, it was corrected as an unalienable right to blacks in the 14th Amendment (which subsequently overruled the 1857 Dred Scott ruling by the Supreme Court that held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States).

          It’s like you don’t understand how our nation works and that ends justify the means. It’s anti-republican. It’s pro-mob rule. It’s people like you that have Cicero rolling in his tomb, Locke rolling in his grave and Jefferson rolling in his casket. It’s because of people like you that great nations fall from within.

          And what do I care if 10 out of 10 people in the village next to me want to ban contraception? It’s not their natural right to contraception. God does not bestow upon man the right to rubbers and pills. The right to contraception is a civil right. One that citizens contract with their local government whether they want it or not. And their reasons are theirs if they choose to ban it. Sort of like banning throwing a football on the beach (which three Democrats from the 1970s did and what three more Democrats clarified in the L.A. County Board of Supervisors in 2012). I vehemently disagree with the decision and I am critical of it, but I am not out there saying the idiot Democrat majority on the L.A. County Board of Supervisors don’t have the right to create and reshape such an absurd law. These are inalienable rights that we negotiate with the representatives that we elect.

          What do I care if Massachusetts passes Romneycare? I disagree with it, but they don’t. What do you care if Kansas wants to teach “intelligent design” along side evolution? You disagree with it, but they don’t. Why should all of America be saddled with learning intelligent design if there are many states who citizens oppose it? And why should all of America be saddled with Obamacare when there are many states who citizens oppose it? These are all inalienable rights we’re discussing, not unalienable. I don;t think you understand the difference.

          By the way, have I missed your stance on DOMA? That is a national law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman (signed by Democrat Bill Clinton). I know, that is a bit of kink in your armor, isn’t it? Do you believe the federal government is making more people happy with that one or do you think the states are making more people happy? Is marriage an alienable right or an unalienable right? Is the federal government out of bounds on this one? Or are they in the right? And if you think the federal government doesn’t have the proper authority to pass such a law, then how do you explain all the national laws concerning inalienable rights? My opinion is that the federal government is out of bounds on this issue… just as they would be over a contraception ban… just as they are with Obamacare… and so on.

          Reply
  14. And STILL no response to the question, “Where do you draw the line on the whole ‘states rights’ thing?” Of course. Because once you admit that there actually IS a line, but you’re putting “the right for two consenting adults to have protected sex” on the wrong side of it, your jackassedness becomes too visible for any smokescreen to hide.

    Why not just fucking admit that you didn’t think this through, and Santorum’s wrong about this? YOU DON’T EVEN LIKE THE GUY. That’s what’s so weird. You’re criticizing him for X but giving him a pass on the truly nutty Y. It’s like hating on Osama bin Laden because he was such a lousy cook.

    Reply
    1. “And STILL no response to the question, ‘Where do you draw the line on the whole ‘states rights’ thing?'”

      If you just read what I posted… you would have your answer. Let’s chalk it up to more poor reading comprehension on your part. Here it is again for the reading impaired:

      “The federal government is mainly in the business of natural law. The state government is mainly in the business of civil law… The bottom line is that U.S. federal government does not have the right or the jurisdiction, according to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to ban anything (except to ban itself from certain activities — as it should be). In fact, it has a duty to protect my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By contrast, each individual state, by the authority vested upon them from the U.S. Constitution, has the sovereignty to enter into the social contract with its citizens to shape behavior through a process that allows the legal transfer such consent.”

      Is contraception an unalienable right? No.
      Is two consenting adult having protected sex an unalienable? No.

      Seriously, this is not complicated. Why are you (a) trying to make it more complicated than it is, and (b) trying to create some narrative that doesn’t exist?! Or is it that your reading comprehension is so terrible and your brain so slow that you just don’t know where you are taking this conversation?

      And for the record, I don’t hate Santorum. I disagree that he’s the best GOP candidate to take on Obama. I don’t like that he’s been “Big Government,” but in comparison to Obama he’d be small government. If he wins the nomination, I would support him because Obama is one of the worst presidents in history… hands downs, without a doubt, no argument.

      Reply
  15. >>The bottom line is that U.S. federal government does not have the right or the jurisdiction, according to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to ban anything (except to ban itself from certain activities — as it should be).

    So just to make sure I got this:

    Because (according to you) the federal government doesn’t have the right to ban anything, you believe nothing should be banned by the federal government.

    Interracial marriage, protected sex, race/gender discrimination, civil rights…All state stuff, huh? Up to the states? All that stuff banned in Alabama, that’s fine by you?

    Just making sure you’re really that soulless.

    You’re also entirely fucking wrong, by the way. Because here’s the ninth amendment for ya:

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

    Because you don’t speak Constitution, I’ll translate:

    It means there are certain rights that American have that aren’t literally spelled out in the Constitution, mainly because they’re too many to list, but they’re bleeding fucking OBVIOUS. It means that just because they’re not all LISTED in the Constitution doesn’t mean we don’t have them.

    For example…RIGHT TO PRIVACY. The right to do whatever the fuck you want in your own home and with your own body as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone ELSE’S rights. That’s what the U.S. Supreme Court has again and again and again. That’s how contraceptives got legalized (Griswold v. CT). And sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas). And abortion (Roe v. Wade).

    You don’t agree with that interpretation? Move to another fucking country, a more invasive one where they can tell you who you can fuck and how you can fuck and whether or not you can fuck for reasons other than procreation. Sounds like this one’s just not your speed. (Yes, I’m aware you’re not AGAINST contraception. But you’re for THE STATES’ ABILITY to ban contraception, WHICH IS JUST AS FUCKING BAD. There, now you don’t have to tell me you’re against contraception again!)

    >>If he wins the nomination, I would support him because Obama is one of the worst presidents in history… hands downs, without a doubt, no argument.

    Yeah, that’s sounding like pretty weak tea these days, but keep on keepin’ on.

    (I love it. “Hands down, no argument” on the same thread where he accused ME of thinking myself omnipotent or something. No argument from WHO, Tim? Obama’s approval rating is back up over 50%. Bush left with a 22! No argument? Are you sure?)

    Reply
    1. You’re an idiot. “All the stuff banned in Alabama…” First, all that stuff was banned by Democrats. Second, you are ignoring the argument about inalienable rights and unalienable rights. I guess it is too above your head to understand. Let me try this… Each state is supposed to be like it’s own little nation with its own culture, society and laws. That’s why state’s have Constitutions and why we don’t just have one national Constitution for all the states (can it be more self-evident?)… so each state can determine their existences whether good or bad, whether smart or stupid, whether passing Romneycare or passing a law that defined marriage between opposite genders.

      The role of the federal government is not to entangle itself in the creation of such national laws, it is to make sure the states don’t go to war with each other, to protect the states, to coin money, to deliver mail, and to ensure the unalienable rights of its citizens. I can’t help that you have such a poor understanding of our nation. I can’t help that you think the federal government has more power than listed in the enumerated powers.

      And thanks for bringing up the Ninth Amendment. “I do not mean to imply that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government….While the Ninth Amendment – and indeed the entire Bill of Rights – originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties.” – United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947)

      You believe that the Ninth Amendment protects all citizens’ “fundamental personal rights,” from state and federal infringement. Again, go back to inalienable and unalienable rights. For example, you are suggest a person has a federal right to contraception protected by the Ninth Amendment. As, I suppose, any rational thinking person would suggest that throwing a football on a L.A. County beach is a fundamental personal right that neither the state, nor the federal government, can infringe. But you are wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

      Some judges have tried to use the Ninth Amendment to justify judicially enforcing rights that are not enumerated. It is a common error to talk of ‘Ninth Amendment rights.’ The Ninth Amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.

      You talk about a right to privacy. It’s not noted in the U.S. Constitution. But where is it noted? Oh yeah, California’s Constitution:

      CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
      ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
      SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

      If your right to privacy is protected by the federal government, then why must it be noted in our California. And if our federal government covers all the bases in terms of our rights, then why do we need a state Constitution at all?!

      By the way, I love all your examples of how contraception got legalized… they are lawsuits that challenged state laws! Again, inalienable rights and unalienable rights. We can have a discussion on a separate topic whether the judicial system can create legislation, which I am sure we’d disagree. But the fact remains that in the lawsuits you cited, they may have been settled by a higher court, but they were state issues.

      Amazing how that works.

      Seriously, you are dumb… and why do you keep avoiding DOMA? It really screws up your notion that national laws, affecting everyone, are always a good thing. No wonder you avoid it. Do I need to think of a few more you’d probably disagree with too?

      Reply
  16. *There, now you don’t have to tell me you’re against contraception again!)

    Another typo, obviously. You don’t have to tell me you’re NOT against contraception again.

    But please feel free to make another transparent attempt to distract from the fact that you’re essentially saying that you’re okay with giving states the power to ban it. It’s fun watching you desperately try to squirm and wriggle your way out of stating your own odious positions.

    Reply
  17. >>Each state is supposed to be like it’s own little nation with its own culture, society and laws.

    Yet also UNITED by some broad rules and principles. That’s why it’s called the “United” States, and not the “Distinct and Separate” States. See how that works?

    >>That’s why state’s have Constitutions and why we don’t just have one national Constitution for all the states (can it be more self-evident?)

    See, we have a NATIONAL Constitution for the BIG stuff, that, you know, UNITES all the states, and then each state has its own Constitution for the more specific stuff. Really not that complicated.

    >>so each state can determine their existences whether good or bad, whether smart or stupid, whether passing Romneycare or passing a law that defined marriage between opposite genders.

    Yes, they are allowed to deviate from each other in certain ways, but they are NOT allowed to deviate from the stuff in the, whattaya call it, UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Are you seriously unclear on all this? Cause I’m not seeing the percentage in feigning ignorance of it.

    >>The role of the federal government is not to entangle itself in the creation of such national laws, it is to make sure the states don’t go to war with each other, to protect the states, to coin money, to deliver mail, and to ensure the unalienable rights of its citizens.

    And to lay out the general principles and rules that ALL the states have to abide by. It’s kind of like running a grammar school. There’s different things going on in each classroom, but see, there are also broad, general rules about what time the day begins and ends, how long recess is…Things like that. If each teacher were free to start and end the day whenever they wanted and were free to eliminate recess if they wanted to, that would be really chaotic and fucked up. Ya know? Again: Not that complicated.

    >>For example, you are suggest a person has a federal right to contraception protected by the Ninth Amendment. As, I suppose, any rational thinking person would suggest that throwing a football on a L.A. County beach is a fundamental personal right that neither the state, nor the federal government, can infringe.

    What a strange, strange non-sequitur. What a completely bizarrely wrong way to rephrase what I said. Where the fuck do you get this shit? And then you tell me how horribly wrong I am about this thing that I never, ever said. It’s just fucking WEIRD.

    >>The Ninth Amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.

    It’s actually generally good form to attribute people you’re directly quoting…for example, in this case, Laurence Tribe…but anyway, go on?

    >>You talk about a right to privacy. It’s not noted in the U.S. Constitution.

    Right, not literally. Which is my point about the ninth amendment, which basically says that “JUST BECAUSE WE ONLY MENTIONED CERTAIN RIGHTS HERE DOESN’T MEAN YOU DON’T HAVE OTHER RIGHTS.” In other words, the fact that it doesn’t literally mention a right to privacy doesn’t mean we don’t HAVE a right to privacy. Because they figured it’s really kind of a given that the government shouldn’t be telling consenting adults what they can and can’t do in their bedrooms. Because they figured no one could possibly be so pea-brained as to think that the government COULD do that. They simply didn’t have the foresight to envision the awfulness of Rick Santorum. Or Tim Ross, for that matter.

    >>If your right to privacy is protected by the federal government, then why must it be noted in our California.

    Oh my God, that’s fucking brilliant! If it’s mentioned in a state Constitution, how could it POSSIBLY be mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?

    Here, for example, is an excerpt from Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution:

    “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
    press.”

    Freedom of the press! Right there in the California Constitution! So how could it POSSIBLY be in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution! Hmm…I must have hallucinated it! That’s the only explanation.

    >>If your right to privacy is protected by the federal government, then why must it be noted in our California. And if our federal government covers all the bases in terms of our rights, then why do we need a state Constitution at all?!

    Exactly! You’re a fucking genius, you moron!

    >>By the way, I love all your examples of how contraception got legalized… they are lawsuits that challenged state laws.

    Uh, yeah, exactly the point. State law banned X, and Supreme Court said “Sorry, banning that is unconstitutional because it violates the right to privacy that ALL AMERICANS have.” Which is how it should, and in fact DOES, work. Your point is what?

    >>But the fact remains that in the lawsuits you cited, they may have been settled by a higher court, but they were state issues.

    No idea what this means. They were “state issues” in the sense that certain states attempted to ban them, and the Supreme Court decided that they couldn’t because it was unconstitutional. I fail to see how that’s a point in your favor. But then again, you get everything fucking backwards, so I guess it’s a point in your favor in Tim Ross Bizarro World where up is down and sugar is healthy and what you do in your own bedroom is the government’s business.

    >>and why do you keep avoiding DOMA?

    Wha??

    a) This is the first mention of DOMA on this thread, so I have no idea what you’re referring to; and
    b) You’ve avoided a whole shitload of far more relevant questions I’ve asked you, so you’re one to talk about avoidance.
    c) WTF are you talking about?

    >>It really screws up your notion that national laws, affecting everyone, are always a good thing.

    Please, please, please, I’m begging you, show me where I said that national laws affecting everyone are “always a good thing.” I’m really curious where I said that. I can show you a few spots where I said SOME national laws are a good thing. I can also show you where you said that states should be allowed to ban contraception, which is so seriously demented and fascist and un-American, I can barely find words for it, but I don’t recall what you’re referring to. National laws affecting everyone are always a good thing? I said that? Knock yourself out, I’ll be right here.

    >>Do I need to think of a few more you’d probably disagree with too?

    Hm…Since I’m pretty sure I never said anything like that, I’ll say “No.”

    Here’s a hint: When you attribute something to me and vehemently refute it…It’s really a much stronger point if I actually SAID the thing you’re refuting. Otherwise, it’s what’s called a “Strawman.”

    But since you steadfastly refuse to grasp the “Strawman” concept, I’ll just leave that be.

    Did I mention how fucking bad you are at this?

    Reply
  18. >For example, you are suggest a person has a federal right to contraception protected by the Ninth Amendment.

    And again, just because I KNOW how wrong you’re going to get this: I’m not saying the 9th amendment protects one’s federal right to contraception. The 9th amendment is what says: “You have rights that aren’t listed here in the Constitution. Because they’re a GIVEN.” THE SUPREME COURT is the one that’s said, again and again and again, “You have a right to PRIVACY, even though it doesn’t literally say so in the Constitution.”

    I can’t imagine where they’re getting that idea, but maybe from here:

    “That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain INHERENT RIGHTS, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they CANNOT, BY ANY COMPACT, DEPRIVE or divest their posterity; namely, THE ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND LIBERTY, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

    Just a guess.

    Reply
  19. >>By the way, have I missed your stance on DOMA? That is a national law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman (signed by Democrat Bill Clinton). I know, that is a bit of kink in your armor, isn’t it?

    I’m sorry, you’re right, DOMA was mentioned earlier, and I missed it, somehow, in your sea of gibberish. Okay, I’ll address this.

    My problem with DOMA is EXACTLY THE SAME as what I’m attacking about Santorum’s position on contraceptives. It ALLOWS the states to ban gay marriage, in the same way that Santorum would ALLOW the states to ban contraceptives. It ALLOWS states to deprive some people of a basic fundamental right, same as overturning Griswold v. CT would.

    So how is that a “kink in my armor”? It’s the opposite: It’s an analogous example of exactly what I’m talking about!

    Bizarro Tim Ross World, everybody!

    Reply
  20. Man, you are so wrong on this, it isn’t even funny. Seriously, did you have hippies for teachers? They seriously mislead you on A LOT of what you think you know.

    Your “Distinct and Separate” States argument is so stupid. Why? Because I can respond with this: That’s why it’s called the United “States,” and not the “Joined and Same” States. See how that works?

    That’s why we have a U.S. Constitution with unalienable rights, and the states have Constitutions with inalienable rights. It’s pretty clear. The words exist in them… no matter how you try and argue that natural law and civil law are blurred, you can’t. It’s black and white. No matter how much you avoid the argument and try to focus your efforts on more simplistic semantics like the “United” in “United States.”

    “we have a NATIONAL Constitution for the BIG stuff” – What are you… six years old? Banning the sale of Easy Bake Ovens at your neighbor’s garage sale is the BIG stuff? Banning incandescent light bulbs is the BIG stuff? Forcing hotels, restaurants, airlines, and the like became obliged to modify “policies, practices, or procedures” to accommodate miniature horses is the BIG stuff? Prohibiting school lunch ladies from serving more than one cup per week of potatoes per student is the BIG stuff? Requiring every street sign in the United States to contain upper and lower case letters is the BIG stuff? And I can go on an on. But this is the “BIG stuff” in your lousy opinion?!

    If you ask me, these national laws I just pointed out are proof of what you call “seriously demented and fascist and un-American.” Remember, it is the Democrat Party that is the party of ban. Maybe Santorum personally believes in not using contraception and has said over and over again that banning contraception is not something he would ever propose (nor could you imagine a Congress attempting to ban it? Are you out of your mind??). Even in the 1,400+ bills he sponsored or co-sponsored in his time as a Senator, he never sought to pass a law that banned contraception. Meanwhile, it’s Democrats who actually ban, ban, ban. Seriously, L.A. City Council is currently in the process of banning single-use paper and plastic bags, the county has banned throwing a Frisbee on the beach, the state banned ferrets, and the federal government banned off shore drilling. I mean these are not controversial issues… these are common sense. Democrats = Party of Ban.

    Something you fail to understand (well, let’s just call as it is… something you fail to know)… The federal government does not grant powers to the states, the states grant the power to the federal government. It is not top-down as you describe. It is bottom-up. Yes, there is a supremacy clause, and that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about where power is derived. The states grant the power of supremacy to the federal government, supremacy is not inherent just by virtue of its existence. That is why the Constitution clearly states that it only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers… going back to unalienable rights.

    In other words, the states cannot enact laws that usurp the natural rights of its citizens — or as enacted in the Bill of Rights and its amendments — and it is the federal government that has the power to correct that issue should it arise. Example, a state enacts a law that bans free speech… the federal government has the power to reverse that state’s legislation. If a local government enacts a law like throwing a Frisbee on the beach, it is not the federal government’s right to overturn such a law. Why? One is an unalienable right (a non-transferable fundamental right) and the other is an inalienable right (a transferable civil right). The problem is that over time, the federal government has dipped its toe in places it should not. The federal government has expanded into areas of governing never intended by the Founders. And when that end justify the means, the means become a protected ability. And then dopes like you come along and look at everything only on the surface and refuse to engage in any sort of critical thinking and believe the status quo is how it is supposed to be. That’s why you think it is okay for Congress to enact a multitude of national laws (you think they are all BIG laws… but there are countless stupid little civil laws) that are not enshrined in the enumerated powers. Overtime, Americans who don’t know any better believe that this is a top-down government, as it was never intended.

    Those who believe that the federal government should be able to ‘enact any law it sees fit so long as it doesn’t conflict with the Constitution’ have no clue about our government. While the latter half of that statement is true, the federal government was not designed to “enact any law it sees fit.” James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and others believed that the federal government was not the sole or final judge of its own authority, holding that this would “make it, and not the Constitution, the judge of its powers.” Rather, in the Virginia Resolutions, the Kentucky Resolutions and elsewhere, various individuals stipulated that the people of the individual states were the final check on federal power to ensure compliance with the Constitution, holding that the people of any given state had the final power to “interpose” for the purpose of maintaining the Constitution against federal abuses thereof.

    he United States Constitution gives significant power to the individual state governments. States are not mere provinces set up to take orders from a central authority in Washington DC and execute these orders regionally. States are afforded sovereign powers of their own. In Federalist #45, the powers assigned to the individual states were summarized by James Madison: “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.”

    As sovereign entities with their own executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government; states are free to govern without federal influence within the confines of their own state constitutions. In addition to the domestic powers outlined by Madison, states assumed the responsibility to actively limit central government’s natural desire to grow beyond the enumerated powers of the Constitution. In Federalist #28, Alexander Hamilton (who I am not especially a fan) spoke about the state’s duty to provide a check on the power of a growing central government: “he State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.”

    In the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the laws attempted to circumvent clear Constitutional rights through standard legislation. In 1798, as a response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, Jefferson and Madison, drafted resolutions outlining the proper course states should take when the central government assumes powers outside the powers specifically granted by the Constitution. Jefferson wrote:

    “Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government… and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force… that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers;… that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority;… and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorised by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories.”

    In effect, Jefferson believed that states should reject, or nullify, unconstitutional federal laws through state legislative declaration; and deny federal authority of enforcement within their state boundaries.

    You see, the Founders saw our nation as a bottom-up government — not top-down — where the state provide the federal government its power and that its power is really there to protect the states and the citizen’s unalienable rights. Nowadays, when the majority of States disagree with a national law, such as Obamacare (yes, 26 in fact), they have to rely on “waivers” and go through the legal system as remedy. This is because, over time, just as the Founders expected central government would natural grow beyond the enumerated powers, dopes like you have accepted certain systems in government that were never intended to exist… they believe in top-down government… they believe in national laws… they believe in legislating from the bench… they believe in bans… they believe that the national governing is better than local governing.

    By the way, you’re Supreme Court argument is exactly what I am talking about perverting the Constitution… though not stated in Constitution, a group of nine people have decided not to interpret, but to add language that didn’t previously exist in it. The federal government — home of the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI, and The Patriot Act — is going to protect your right to privacy. LOL. Look, I am more of a libertarian guy, I am all for keeping the government out of my wallet and my bedroom… but your right to privacy is not a fundamental right enshrined in natural law. It is a civil right that you often transfer with your government. You have a social contract with the government where you receive the benefits of your tax dollars in various ways and they get to see how much money you make. To suggest that I can keep my income private from the government is laughable at best. If I don’t engage in suspicious activity, then I keep my right to privacy. If I do engage in suspicious activity, my right to privacy is given up. It is a social contract. And that is a civil right… not a natural right. My right to defend myself from being killed by another person is a fundamental right. My right to have equal access is a fundamental right. My right to pursue happiness, is a fundamental right. I might not live, succeed or be happy… but the opportunities are my rights. I am not suggesting people don’t have the right to privacy, what I am saying is that it is not the federal government’s authority. It is the State’s authority. And I am sure no State would deny people certain privacy rights (unless, of course, they are Democrats) inasmuch as the federal government would deny the rights. But the States might have different ways of dealing with certain privacy issues… and that is up for the people in that State to decide. Why is this stuff so hard for you to understand? Oh, yeah, you are on meds and have a reading comprehension problem…. terrible combo.

    “This is the first mention of DOMA on this thread, so I have no idea what you’re referring to…”
    First mention?! You’re an idiot. I said your reading comprehension was terrible. Now you have given me irrefutable proof. Here is where I mention DOMA in the thread… go back and look it up:
    a) February 19, 2012 at 3:06 pm
    b) February 20, 2012 at 2:28 am
    c) February 20, 2012 at 10:22 am
    d) February 20, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    “Please, please, please, I’m begging you, show me where I said that national laws affecting everyone are “always a good thing.” – All it takes is a little inductive reasoning to see that every single example you cited (interracial marriage, sexual discrimination, racial discrimination, slavery, etc) was a result of “good” national laws combined with the fact that you clearly contrasted my statement, “Local government is better!” with The Emancipation Proclamation implying national laws affecting everyone is better than local governing… not to mention the fact that you were set off by me suggesting that local governing is better (why are you arguing if you think there is some merit to that statement?). You have yet to suggest there is a downside to national laws… well, until I mentioned DOMA (which, I might add, you have now avoided trying to fit into your narrative for the 4th time). Clearly, you are backpedaling. Are you now finding some merit to local governing being better than national governing?

    Just admit it… your in favor of National Socialism. You think we’d all just be better off if the U.S. shed Capitalism for Socialism and it was handled at the national level. Right?

    Reply
  21. >>That’s why we have a U.S. Constitution with unalienable rights, and the states have Constitutions with inalienable rights. It’s pretty clear. The words exist in them… no matter how you try and argue that natural law and civil law are blurred, you can’t. It’s black and white. No matter how much you avoid the argument and try to focus your efforts on more simplistic semantics like the “United” in “United States.”

    I’m not sure how YOU get around the fact that the 9th amendment allows for rights that aren’t listed in the Constitution (as James Madison put it: “a great residuum being the rights of the people”), and that the 14th amendment prohibits the states from abridging fundamental liberties, specifically, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

    That’s very clear, isn’t it? Maybe not to someone as allergic to Constitutional language as you, but to most of us, it’s quite clear. The states can’t make laws that abridge the basic, fundamental freedoms. Done and done. After that, it all comes down to whether or not you believe the right for two adults to have protected sex is a fundamental freedom.

    Me, along with 99.999999% of the population, I say yes.

    Rick Santorum and you apparently say no.

    Agree to disagree!

    >>“we have a NATIONAL Constitution for the BIG stuff” – What are you… six years old?

    Tim, I tried using more sophisticated language, and WHOOSH it went, over your head. Won’t make THAT mistake again!

    >>If you ask me, these national laws I just pointed out are proof of what you call “seriously demented and fascist and un-American.”

    They sound frivolous and silly, but I fail to see how they’re in the same category as telling anyone what they can or can’t do in the privacy of their own bedroom. You really don’t see that? You really, with a straight face, are telling me that “Signs must have upper and lower case letters” is just as fascist as “You can’t have protected sex?” You can’t possibly believe that. Oh wait, right, you’re insane. So anything’s possible.

    >>Maybe Santorum personally believes in not using contraception and has said over and over again that banning contraception is not something he would ever propose

    Tim, he thinks “Griswold v. CT” should be overturned. He’s been quite clear about that. You know how he would accomplish that? Appoint Supreme Court justices who feel the same. It’s already leaning conservative, so it wouldn’t really take that much. But in any case, whether or not he actually COULD do it is a moot point. The fact that he FEELS that way, that the decision was a wrong one, that the states SHOULD be able to ban contraception, is the odious and fascist part. What he’s essentially saying is that the rules of the Catholic Church should be the law. That’s about as un-American as it gets, and if you agree with him, there are plenty of theocracies out there to choose from. This country here is about SEPARATION of church and state. Familiar with that phrase?

    >>If a local government enacts a law like throwing a Frisbee on the beach, it is not the federal government’s right to overturn such a law.

    The fact that you think the right to throw a Frisbee on a beach is at all comparable with the right to have protected sex is why you’re so difficult to take seriously. You’re a silly, silly individual. You know that, right?

    >>All it takes is a little inductive reasoning to see that every single example you cited (interracial marriage, sexual discrimination, racial discrimination, slavery, etc) was a result of “good” national laws combined with the fact that you clearly contrasted my statement, “Local government is better!”

    Um, sorry, no. Doesn’t work that way. I listed a few obvious examples of “good” national laws. Only the most inept logician would believe that somehow translates to “ALL national laws are good.” I also said SEVERAL TIMES that I in fact DON’T have a problem with the states differing on certain things, such as gambling. I DO (once again!) have a problem with the states having the power to ban certain FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS such as the right of two adults to have protected sex.

    This really isn’t that complicated. Why the fuck are you defending this? You can’t POSSIBLY be okay with the idea of a married couple going to jail, even in some state you don’t give a shit about, for having protected sex. How could someone even as silly and stupid as you be okay with that? Set aside the moral question of it for a second: Do you really think that would be a good use of taxpayer dollars? Trials of married couples for having protected sex? Tying up DA’s and judges with such cases? Taking up jail space with them? Removing them from being productive members of society? Would you say that the punishment fit the crime? Out of all the goddamn problems this country is juggling right now, you really are defending the scenario of some states criminalizing PROTECTED SEX?

    Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

    >>well, until I mentioned DOMA (which, I might add, you have now avoided trying to fit into your narrative for the 4th time).

    Asked and answered. See above. I wasn’t side-stepping it, I was just missing it in my wades through all your piles of bullshit, and as you’ll see from my answer, I had no REASON to side-step it. It’s exactly what I’m talking about.

    >>Clearly, you are backpedaling. Are you now finding some merit to local governing being better than national governing?

    Are you really this fucking bad at this? That there’s no in-between with you, that in your mind, I support SOME national laws, so therefore, I support ALL national laws? Do you see why I have to use such simple terms with you? You just can’t fucking read. How to see this more clearly?

    IN SOME CASES, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, IT’S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE ALL THE STATES FOLLOW CERTAIN LAWS.

    IN OTHERS, IT’S FINE IF THEY DIFFER FROM EACH OTHER.

    Seriously, I can’t dumb it down any further than that. If you still don’t get it, you’re shit outta luck.

    >>Just admit it… your in favor of National Socialism. You think we’d all just be better off if the U.S. shed Capitalism for Socialism and it was handled at the national level. Right?

    No, that’s your weird-ass brain drawing bizarro conclusions from thin air. How about this:

    YOU just admit that you’re fine with living in a country where some states jail people for having protected sex, buying condoms, and distributing literature ABOUT safe sex.

    Which is to say: You’re okay with a country where the government can control what adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

    Which is to say: You’re okay with a country in which certain states shred basic liberties in favor of religious rules.

    Which is to say: You’re okay with the United States turning into “A bunch of separate entities, some of which give a shit about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and some don’t.”

    Me, I’m not.

    Agree to disagree!

    Reply
  22. Incidentally, here’s the Santorum point of view you’re so ardently defending in all its glory:

    “I guess it is and have voted for contraception, although I don’t think it works.”

    He doesn’t think it works! Oh sure, it stemmed the tide of the world’s over-population problem and all that, and it gives women the ability to have sex without necessarily procreating, but, you know, BFD.

    “I think it’s harmful to women.”

    Hm. A man deciding what’s harmful to women. A man deciding that women shouldn’t have the right to have non-procreative sex because it’s “harmful” to them, somehow, for some unspoken reason. Gee, that’s swell.

    “I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young and it has I think we’ve seen very, very harmful long-term consequences to the society.”

    Huh! Yeah? Sex outside of marriage is harmful to society? This thing that’s been going on, billions of times a day, all over the world, since the beginning of mankind…it’s harmful to society? Yeah? How’s that?

    And if we make it harder to access birth control, problem solved, right? People will just stop having sex outside of marriage, right? Because that’s how it works? Once it’s illegal, people stop doing it. Right? Right?

    “Birth control to me enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.”

    Ah, right. It’s far healthier for women to have no access to birth control, so that when they want to have sex with someone without the risk getting pregnant, it’s just too bad for them, they’ll just have to either quash their desire or roll the dice. And then if they DO get pregnant they’ll have to either have an abortion (if THAT’S still legal) or give birth to a kid they don’t want and possibly can’t afford (resulting in higher taxes, higher safety net costs, more crime, poverty, homelessness…), and then either reluctantly raise it or give it up for an adoption.

    Welcome to Rick Santorum’s America!

    Hey, where you going?

    Reply
  23. >>I am not suggesting people don’t have the right to privacy, what I am saying is that it is not the federal government’s authority. It is the State’s authority.

    And I’m saying you’re totally fucking wrong, according to the 9th and 14th amendments. Not that you care.

    >>And I am sure no State would deny people certain privacy rights (unless, of course, they are Democrats) inasmuch as the federal government would deny the rights.

    Well, that’s swell that you have such faith in the states. Are you aware that contraception was still illegal in some states in the 1960’s, and that if it weren’t for those damn “activist judges” on that damn “Supreme Court”, it still WOULD be? Because that’s what you’re defending, the right for Rick Santorum to turn back the clock to the pre-“Griswold v. CT” days when a married couple could be jailed for having protected sex in some states. So you’ll forgive me if your faith in the states to protect such rights isn’t quite enough to remove the chill of such a thought.

    >>But the States might have different ways of dealing with certain privacy issues… and that is up for the people in that State to decide. Why is this stuff so hard for you to understand?

    Again: I understand that you think the state has those rights, I understand that you’re WRONG about that, and I understand that your (wrong-headed) defense of the states’ supposed rights to ban something as basic as the right to have protected sex revolts me. Why it doesn’t revolt YOU is the true mystery. Oh right, you’re stupid, blinkered and insane. Duh.

    >>Oh, yeah, you are on meds and have a reading comprehension problem…. terrible combo.

    Zing!

    Reply
    1. Only you would praise the judicial system for making laws, usurping the legislative process. Only you would believe there should be no separation of powers. Only you would think that states have fewer rights than they do. Only you would praise all the banning that does on in government at all levels (except for things involving sex and, probably, drugs). Only you would think that Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton are wrong on the interpreting the Constitution.

      You know, places exist where you can bow to a large centralized government. You ought to consider moving to them. For example, there is one country’s Constitution that guarantees civil and political rights, such as freedom of expression, the freedom of press, the freedom to assemble, the freedom to demonstrate, the freedom to associate, freedom of religion, freedom to travel, freedom to reside, the right to elect and be elected, the right to a fair trial, and freedom of religion… as well as asserting that women are equal to men in social status and rights, the right of every citizen to work, education, food, free health care, and even relaxation (yes, even relaxation). Right there in the Constitution… unalienable and inalienable rights in their nation’s Constitution. It’s all done through centralized planning, so you don’t have to worry about those pesky local governments trying to deny people rights (because, according to you, that’s what the States want to do here in the U.S.). Yes, this place I am describing is your paradise. You’d even say that Constitution is better than the U.S. Constitution. Just absolute Tiersky paradise!

      The only problem is that comes straight outta the Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

      I can help you pack your bags.

      Reply
  24. >>Only you would praise the judicial system for making laws, usurping the legislative process.

    Only you would interpret what I’m saying so completely wrong. Only you would attempt to make the case that the states have the right to ban something, but the the federal government DOESN’T have the jurisdiction to say “Hey, no, you can’t ban that, it’s a fundamental right.” (Seriously, Tim? That’s your genuine belief? With a straight face?)

    Only you would try to make the case that the right to have protected sex in the privacy of one’s own bedroom is not a basic, fundamental, unenumerated liberty. It’s arguably THE basic, fundamental, unenumerated liberty.

    >>Only you would think that Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton are wrong on the interpreting the Constitution.

    Uh, right. Read Madison’s explanation of the 9th amendment and the reasoning behind it, and then get back to me.

    >>You know, places exist where you can bow to a large centralized government. You ought to consider moving to them.

    Only you would argue that believing people should be allowed to have protected sex without being jailed for it is “bowing to a large centralized government.”

    And only you would equate an argument in favor of SOME federal laws as an argument for ALL federal laws. Here, what’s your email address? I’ll Paypal you some money for a fucking dictionary.

    >>It’s all done through centralized planning, so you don’t have to worry about those pesky local governments trying to deny people rights (because, according to you, that’s what the States want to do here in the U.S.).

    Again, you’re hallucinating, because I haven’t said anything like that. The states don’t want to do that. RICK SANTORUM wants the states to do that. And you apparently agree. He wants to because he’s an extremist religious ideologue who for some bizarre reason hates the notion of non-procreative sex and essentially wants America to live under Catholic rule. And you agree because…Well, because you’re an idiot and you just haven’t thought this shit through, really. That’s the most charitable explanation I can come up with. You’re welcome.

    >>The only problem is that comes straight outta the Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

    Tim, here’s the thing:

    I’M the guy who’s arguing for things to stay THE WAY THEY ALREADY FUCKING ARE. With people free to have protected sex if they want to, no matter what state they live in.

    YOU are the guy saying, hey, no, Santorum has a point, we should turn the clock back five decades to a time when people in some states could be fined and jailed for having protected sex, buying contraceptives or distributing literature about it.

    So if either of us is making a case AGAINST America as it stands today, IT’S YOU.

    So how is it that, in your mind, I’M the guy who’s not happy with America and wants to turn it into some other country?

    Because your mind is Bizarro World, where cold is hot, shit smells delicious, and everyone in America, the Home of the Free, is delighted that we’ve returned to the days when married couples can get arrested for using condoms.

    My God, you’re fucking bad at this.

    (Hey, incidentally, what happened to that fantastic argument you had up there, “It’s in the California Constitution, so how could it be in the U.S. Constitution?” Did my freedom of the press example demolish it enough for you abandon it already? Are we done there? Do I hear an “Uncle”?)

    Reply
    1. Only you would advocate for everyone to live the way that YOU deem acceptable and not how certain states might see fit to govern themselves. You forget, you aren’t America’s tyrant who gets to dictate national law. So, you are going to get the bad with the good. If Roe v Wade is overturned, then the states get to decide on abortion. If DOMA is not enacted, then the states get to decide. If California wants to abort babies, then they get to. If the California doesn’t want gay marriage. It doesn’t have to have it. What does Iowa care what California does? If Iowa wants to make abortion illegal, then they get to. If Iowa wants gays marriage, then they get to. Local governing gives local residents what they want and not what they might not want. Why do you feel you are the person who knows best for all? Do you have some kind of God complex? Is that what your meds are for?

      Reply
      1. >>Only you would advocate for everyone to live the way that YOU deem acceptable and not how certain states might see fit to govern themselves. You forget, you aren’t America’s tyrant who gets to dictate national law.

        Again: Since I’M the guy advocating for people being free to have unprotected sex in any state they choose, and YOU are the guy saying you’re okay with some states criminalizing that, it’s truly mind-boggling how from this you attempt to cast ME as the tyrant. Do you really not see the disconnect there? You really don’t see how the guy in favor of PREVENTING people from doing what they want is generally more tyrannical than the guy ALLOWING people to do what they want?

        >>What does Iowa care what California does?

        I already told you.

        a) Iowa and California are both AMERICA, so if California is banning something that Iowa believes is a fundamental freedom, Iowa is now living in a less free country. Just because YOU are incapable of caring what happens to other people in other states doesn’t mean no one else does. (But I’M the narcissist! Hilarious!)

        b) When California’s economy falls apart and brings the national averages of crime and unemployment and poverty up and requires more funds for its social safety net programs because so many more women are having babies they don’t want and can’t afford…yeah, that affects Iowa, Tim. You really haven’t thought this shit through, have you?

        >>Why do you feel you are the person who knows best for all? Do you have some kind of God complex?

        You’re fucking insane. Show me where I’ve said anything along the lines of how I feel I know what’s best for all. YOU are the one who is okay with people you don’t know losing their rights to do whatever the fuck they want in their own bedrooms. I’m the one saying PEOPLE CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT IN THEIR OWN BEDROOMS. But I’M the one with the God-complex? I’VE gone mad with tyrannical power…to let people do what they want? But YOU are the enlightened libertarian who’s all for allowing people to…get arrested for using a condom?

        Bizarro world!

        >>Is that what your meds are for?

        Remains the funniest goddamn running gag in Bizarro world.

        Reply
        1. Incidentally, another Santorum quote:

          “Satan has his sights on the United States of America!” Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has declared.

          “Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.”

          Yup. You’re defending a guy whose policies for this country stem from a concern over the influence…of Satan. That is what this is about. Contraceptives equals non-procreating sex equals Satan.

          But I’M the guy who you’re accusing of having the God complex and “knowing what’s best for all.” As you defend the guy trying to protect America from Satan.

          You.
          Crack.
          Me.
          Up.

          Reply
        2. “Since I’M the guy advocating for people being free…” – Implying I don’t? I think the freedom to govern yourself is pretty damn important, don’t you? I know you love the idea that some bureaucrats 3,000 miles away from where you live know better about your city than you do, but I there is no freedom in that. And tell me, how do you advocate for “freedom” (really, the correct word to use here is “liberty,” Mr. Know It All) when you advocate for national laws that affect everyone at every corner of the nation?! And when you support a political party that bans more than any other reasonable political party?! Your greater “freedom” must include all the “Big Stuff” like DOMA; banning the sale of Easy Bake Ovens at your neighbor’s garage sale; banning incandescent light bulbs; forcing hotels, restaurants, airlines, and the like became obliged to modify “policies, practices, or procedures” to accommodate miniature horses; prohibiting school lunch ladies from serving more than one cup per week of potatoes per student; requiring every street sign in the United States to contain upper and lower case letters; and so on. And I’m the one in Bizarro World?!

          Reply
  25. >>“Since I’M the guy advocating for people being free…” – Implying I don’t?

    Apparently not so important that you would object to some states banning contraceptives, no. “Freedom” generally involves being able to do what you want in the privacy of your own bedroom without fear of being arrested for it. Dontcha think?

    >>I think the freedom to govern yourself is pretty damn important, don’t you?

    Yes. I am all for Americans abiding by the U.S. Constitution and no one else’s constitution.

    >>I know you love the idea that some bureaucrats 3,000 miles away from where you live know better about your city than you do, but I there is no freedom in that.

    Dude, YOU are the one who’s okay with some lawmakers in DC deciding that it should be okay for some lawmakers in Austin to decide to imprison some married couple in Dallas for using a condom while having sex in their own home. But I’M the freedom-quasher?

    >>And tell me, how do you advocate for “freedom” (really, the correct word to use here is “liberty,” Mr. Know It All) when you advocate for national laws that affect everyone at every corner of the nation?!

    See, your mistake here is somehow viewing “laws” as the opposite of “freedom”, when in fact, this country’s laws are largely about PROTECTING freedom. Why is there a law against slavery? Sure, one could look it as a restriction against slave-owners…but it’s really to PROTECT the freedom of Americans from being enslaved. Laws against assault? To PROTECT my freedom to walk down the street without getting assaulted. And why did the Supreme Court decide that states can’t criminalize contraception anymore? To protect the FREEDOM of American women to have sex and still control whether or not they want children.

    Are you honestly going to sit there and say that the “freedom” of a state to ban contraceptives is more important to protect than the freedom of women to take them? You don’t really believe that. Do you?

    >>our greater “freedom” must include all the “Big Stuff” like DOMA; banning the sale of Easy Bake Ovens at your neighbor’s garage sale; banning incandescent light bulbs; forcing hotels, restaurants, airlines, and the like became obliged to modify “policies, practices, or procedures” to accommodate miniature horses; prohibiting school lunch ladies from serving more than one cup per week of potatoes per student; requiring every street sign in the United States to contain upper and lower case letters; and so on.

    Again with all this tangential crap? I’ve already said (assuming these are even accurate gripes, because you never know with you) that I think a lot of these laws sound frivolous, but that proves what? That because there’s a silly law about school lunch potatoes, there shouldn’t be a law that protects the sale and use of contraception? That because SOME federal laws are silly, ALL of them are? You haven’t made ANY sort of case against the concept of federal laws; you’ve at best made a case against SOME of them for being silly.

    We agree that we could do without many silly laws.

    We disagree that the disallowing of states to ban contraception is among them. That you would equate woman’s rights to control their family size with a school’s rights to not serve potatoes is just mind-boggling. Revealing and unsurprising, sure. But mind-boggling, nevertheless.

    Agree to disagree!

    Reply
  26. Incidentally, just to experiment with your list of such monstrous federal laws, I did some research on the Easy-Bake Oven thing. I’m sure you already know this, but for the viewers at home…

    You know why it’s a federal crime (as of 2008) to sell an Easy-Bake oven at a garage sale?

    Because IT WAS RECALLED. And the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 made it a crime to sell recalled products.

    Do you know WHY the Easy-Bake oven was recalled?

    Because it had a 100-watt bulb in it, and DOZENS OF CHILDREN were getting burned by it. As this article says “One burn required the partial amputation of a 5-year-old girl’s finger.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3392326&page=1#.T0UM6vWz6So

    So yes, there is a federal law against re-selling a project that’s been recalled because it was injuring children.

    Your argument against this is what? That the power to ban dangerous products for children from being resold should lie with the States?

    So you’re upset that the States don’t have the right to decide whether or not to prevent dangerous products from being resold?

    That’s the sort of “freedom” you want to fight for? The states’ “freedom” to NOT ban products that injure children?

    Ummmmm…

    Go, you?

    Reply
  27. >>forcing hotels, restaurants, airlines, and the like became obliged to modify “policies, practices, or procedures” to accommodate miniature horses;

    What the hell, thought I’d look into this one too. And guess what? It’s wrong.

    Here’s the actual wording, emphasis mine:

    “…make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to PERMIT the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability.”

    Yup, that’s right. Not ACCOMMODATE. They don’t have to build a special miniature horse door or miniature horse stable or miniature horse stairway. Just PERMIT. IF it’s being used as a service animal.

    In other words, if a handicapped person shows up with a miniature horse THAT IS NOT JUST A PET BUT IS PROVIDING HIM SERVICE FOR HIS HANDICAP, and the usual rule of the place is “No miniature horses”, they have to make an exception and allow the miniature horse. Same as if a blind person showed up with a dog, they have to allow the dog even if they don’t normally allow dogs.

    Again: Tim’s beef is that…The STATES are deprived of the right to REJECT that law?

    You’re fighting for the “freedom” of the States to say “Nah, fuck the handicapped, let the hotels throw them out in the street”?

    The States’ freedom to NOT accommodate the handicapped is MORE important to you than the freedom of THE HANDICAPPED to be able to stay in a hotel they want to stay in?

    Ummm…

    Go, you?

    (Keep going with these, or…?)

    Reply
  28. >>requiring every street sign in the United States to contain upper and lower case letters;

    I couldn’t resist. Had to do this one.

    ALSO wrong.

    I mean, it’s A LITTLE true:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/mixedcase.asp

    So NEW signs have to have a mix of upper and lower case (because they apparently are easier to read, and thus increase road safety. TYRANTS!)

    But no, there is no law that EVERY STREET SIGN in the U.S. needs to use mixed letters.

    There is NO REQUIREMENT to replace the current signs merely for the letters reason, only to get them up to retroreflectivity standards, which is a totally different issue, and again, a SAFETY one.

    So basically, three of your four examples of these horrible federal laws weren’t even accurate, and the one that WAS accurate was about protecting children against burn injuries.

    This bears repeating:

    You’re not good at this.

    Reply
  29. Look at you… you spent at least 30 minutes just this morning writing those three responses. You must have no life. Well, I know for a fact you don’t.

    “Dude, YOU are the one who’s okay with some lawmakers in DC deciding that it should be okay for some lawmakers in Austin to decide to imprison some married couple in Dallas for using a condom while having sex in their own home. But I’M the freedom-quasher?” – Where do you get that out of anything I’ve said?! You’re so whacked out, it’s not even funny. I am arguing for exactly the opposite. I don’t think anyone should be denied the right to use contraception at all. But I think there is more freedom in the People of Texas deciding how they want to live than some representatives on the other side of the United States. Why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp? Let’s turn the clock back to 1827 and apply your same argument, “Dude, YOU are the one who’s okay with some lawmakers in DC deciding that it should be okay for some lawmakers in Albany, NY to decide to imprison some land owning couple in New York City for using slaves on their own property. But I’M the freedom-quasher?” Are you going to tell me again that between 1780 and 1863 — one to two generations — that national governing would’ve been better than the State’s governing themselves?!

    You don’t get it. You don’t. You think the relationship between the States and the Federal Government is the same as the relationship between a local municipality and the state government. It’s not. It’s not a chain going from the local government on up to the federal government where the local government takes care of the SMALL things and the federal government takes care of the BIG things (as you do eloquently put it). That’s not the relationship. You are just too small minded to know the difference. If you could wrap your head around unalienable and inalienable rights, you might start to get the big picture.

    The bottom line is that you can’t sit here and sing the praises of a large centralized government without singing the praises of the terrible governing that has negatively impacted everyone instead of just a few (who probably want that terrible governing). When you wish the States have less power, then you wish slavery to have impacted more people in America for more generations. When you wish the States have less power, then you wish Internment Camps to have impacted more people in America during WWII. When you wish the States have less power, then you wish DOMA to have impact more people in America currently. When you wish the States have less power, then you wish The Patriot Act to have impact more people in America currently. And so on. You love national governing. This is what you want.

    And, by the way, glad to see you defending all the BIG things your national government is banning, controlling and legislating. You’re something else.

    Reply
  30. >>Look at you… you spent at least 30 minutes just this morning writing those three responses. You must have no life. Well, I know for a fact you don’t.

    Ah, the ad homs. That’s when I know you’ve surrendered, when you give up actually trying to make your case and focus on irrelevant personal shit. That is indeed an “Uncle!” I hear. Well, better late than never. And incidentally, it didn’t take me a half hour to write those responses, I posted them OVER THE COURSE of a half hour, but they each took about ten seconds of research, is how fucking lazy you are.

    >>“Dude, YOU are the one who’s okay with some lawmakers in DC deciding that it should be okay for some lawmakers in Austin to decide to imprison some married couple in Dallas for using a condom while having sex in their own home. But I’M the freedom-quasher?” – Where do you get that out of anything I’ve said?!

    Um…From the ten billion times you’ve defended the right of THE STATES to ban contraceptives? Are you back-pedaling on that now? Boy, this surrender is bigger than I expected!

    >>I am arguing for exactly the opposite. I don’t think anyone should be denied the right to use contraception at all. But I think there is more freedom in the People of Texas deciding how they want to live than some representatives on the other side of the United States.

    Right, exactly what I just said. The people of Texas should be free to ban contraceptives. Meaning some lawmakers in Washington should ALLOW them to ban contraceptives, so that some lawmakers in Austin can ban contraceptives. You have spent the last two days defending EXACTLY THAT RIGHT. Change your mind?

    >>Are you going to tell me again that between 1780 and 1863 — one to two generations — that national governing would’ve been better than the State’s governing themselves?!

    No, Mr. Bizarro World, I’m going to tell you that the nation would have been better off if banning of slavery had been a NATIONAL LAW in the FIRST place, instead of that whole series of compromises and deals and disagreements that led to the Civil War. Do you not agree with THAT? This I gotta see.

    >>If you could wrap your head around unalienable and inalienable rights, you might start to get the big picture.

    Please stop with that, it’s just a smoke-screen. If YOU could wrap your head around the facts that the 9th and 14th amendments guarantee certain basic HUMAN rights, that would be a fucking miracle, but instead you chose to not even address those simple facts so you could complain about some seemingly frivolous laws…and not even get THOSE right. And then not even address how totally fucking WRONG you got them. What a silly, stupid man you are.

    >>The bottom line is that you can’t sit here and sing the praises of a large centralized government without singing the praises of the terrible governing that has negatively impacted everyone instead of just a few.

    If what you’re trying to say is, “Because there are some bad federal laws, you can’t praise the GOOD federal laws”…or “Because you praise SOME federal laws, you therefore praise ALL federal laws”…And I’m pretty sure it’s one or both of those, but it’s really hard to tell with you sometimes, because you’re so bad at this…That’s just fucking bad logic. Really, really bad logic. Like “It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe” logic. Have I mentioned how not good at this you are?

    >>When you wish the States have less power, then you wish slavery to have impacted more people in America for more generations.

    That’s really as bad as it gets. Seriously, it is. Slavery is the ultimate argument AGAINST the States having more power. The slavery states are the ones who…wait for it…WANTED SLAVERY, and it was a FEDERAL LAW that put an end to that nonsense. This is 5th grade stuff we’re talking about here, Tim. You really should just stop. It’s getting hard to watch.

    >>When you wish the States have less power, then you wish Internment Camps to have impacted more people in America during WWII.

    Insane.

    >>When you wish the States have less power, then you wish DOMA to have impact more people in America currently.

    Again: DOMA is exactly analogous to the contraceptive issue. It doesn’t take power from the States, it GIVES THEM POWER TO BAN SOMETHING. Just like the contraceptive thing. If you’re arguing AGAINST a law like DOMA that ENABLES THE STATES TO BAN SOMETHING, how the fuck can you then argue against enabling the states to ban contraceptives? Seriously, how fucking dumb are you?

    >>You love national governing. This is what you want.

    I see. X defends a few federal laws and SCOTUS decisions that prevent states from banning some basic human rights, as granted by the Constitution. Therefore, X “loves national governing.” Or something. You’re a genuine fucking idiot.

    >>And, by the way, glad to see you defending all the BIG things your national government is banning, controlling and legislating

    Okay, so no comment on all those BIG laws that you were so mercilessly ridiculing that it turns out how completely fucking WRONG you were about?

    No rigorous argument against the federal law banning re-selling items that have been deemed dangerous to children? No rigorous defense of the American citizen’s right to re-sell items that have been deemed dangerous to children?

    I’m all ears. Knock yourself out.

    This I gotta hear.

    Reply
  31. >>If you’re arguing AGAINST a law like DOMA that ENABLES THE STATES TO BAN SOMETHING, how the fuck can you then argue against enabling the states to ban contraceptives?

    Another typo, obviously. Should read along the lines of:

    If you’re against a law like DOMA, which ENABLES states to BAN gay marriage, how can you then argue FOR enabling the states to ban contraceptives?

    Reply
  32. And if you’re keeping score at home, here’s just a few of the things that Tim Ross has completely side-stepped in lieu of listing – TWICE – a few examples of “bad” federal laws, except it turns out that he miss-stated two of them, the third one isn’t even a law and in fact provoked an amendment that PREVENTED such a law, and the fourth one was a no-brainer about reselling items that are dangerous to children:

    a) The actual, practical effects that a ban on birth control in even ONE state would have. Effects that even Republicans claim to loathe (increase in crime, poverty, homelessness, people in jail, taxes, social safety net programs, abortions, unwanted children, etc.).

    b) That Santorum’s agenda in pushing this is quite blatantly a religious one, i.e., he wants Catholic law to be U.S. law, his great concern about America is about the influence of Satan, and his great concern specifically about birth control is that it “doesn’t work” and enables women to have non-procreative sex, which is “bad” for them. Somehow.

    c) That his classic argument, “Why would it be in the CA Constitution if it were already in the US Constitution?” collapses after a two-second glance at the CA Constitution will reveal a “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press” clause.

    d) That he keeps invoking DOMA as an example of how “bad” federal laws are, when it is in fact a PERFECT example of how “bad” it is when you allow states to ban a basic human right, which is exactly what he’s arguing FOR in the case of contraception.

    e) That he equates “laws” with being against “freedom”, when in fact it’s quite demonstrably obvious that most laws in this country were enacted with the intention of PROTECTING freedom.

    f) How seriously factually wrong he was about his little list of “bad” federal laws.

    g) His inability to recognize the truly awful logic behind his belief that if one supports SOME federal laws, they must therefore support ALL federal laws.

    Here’s your second shot, Tim. If you feel like addressing them now, I’m all ears.

    If not…Gee, what is one to think? That you’re a douchebag who cowardly sidesteps all the stuff he can’t answer because he knows how totally fucking wrong he is but is too lame and childish to admit it?

    Cause otherwise, I’m tapped.

    Reply
  33. “Ah, the ad homs.” – You’re worried about ad hominen attacks now?!

    Ladies and gentlemen, the same guy who brought you, “That’s when I know you’ve surrendered, when you give up actually trying to make your case and focus on irrelevant personal shit. That is indeed an “Uncle!” I hear. Well, better late than never. And incidentally, it didn’t take me a half hour to write those responses, I posted them OVER THE COURSE of a half hour, but they each took about ten seconds of research, is how fucking lazy you are,” also brought you this:

    -you’re as demented as he is
    -you’re just too much of a wuss
    -Idiotic argumentative tactic.
    -You’re fucking insane.
    -you’re truly insane, even more so than I thought.
    -Which brand of insane are you?
    -you’re a self-centered douchebag incapable of empathy.
    -You’re so fucking bad at this.
    -it’s fascinating how your mind works, that it manages to spit the complete opposite of the truth out so consistently.
    -Odious. And insane.
    -Why not just fucking admit that you didn’t think this through,
    -Because you don’t speak Constitution
    -You’re a fucking genius, you moron!
    -in Tim Ross Bizarro World
    -Did I mention how fucking bad you are at this?
    -Bizarro Tim Ross World, everybody!
    -Maybe not to someone as allergic to Constitutional language as you
    -Oh wait, right, you’re insane. So anything’s possible.
    -Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?
    -It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe.
    -Oh right, you’re stupid, blinkered and insane.
    -because you’re an idiot and you just haven’t thought this shit through
    -You’re fucking insane.

    Pot… meet kettle. Stone… meet glass house. Tiersky… take your meds.

    Reply
  34. >>“Ah, the ad homs.” – You’re worried about ad hominen attacks now?!

    Yes, Tim, I’ve peppered my comments with insults and jibes at you. They are admittedly gratuitous and unnecessary, but they’re not what I (or the dictionary) mean by “ad hom”; it specifically means an argumentative response that goes to the person INSTEAD of the argument they’re making. It’s responding to a point by simply saying “Oh yeah? Well, what do you know, you’re ugly!” As opposed to what I do, which is attack your ARGUMENT and then throw in a gratuitous barb for emphasis.

    So I don’t say “you must be wrong because you’re an idiot,” I say “you’re wrong, and here’s the obvious REASONS WHY you’re wrong, and BY THE WAY, you’re an idiot.” (There might have been one case where I simply said “You’re insane”, but that’s an anomalous instance where words failed, and the insanity at hand spoke for itself.)

    Whereas, “Take your meds”? Ad hom.

    “You spent a half hour compiling that proof that I was totally fucking wrong about all those laws, ha ha, you have no life”? Total ad hom.

    And going through this whole thread and plucking out all the insults INSTEAD of responding to the seven major points I listed or anything else?

    Not sure if I’d call that an ad hom, but it sure is unquestionably a pathetic side-step, an obvious surrender to the arguments at hand, and a ridiculous waste of time on your part.

    Other than that, well done!

    Reply
    1. You are so stupid you don’t even know the definition of ad hominen. It’s less about “name calling,” and more about discrediting the person making the argument by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Look. I just did it at the beginning of this post. I called you stupid. That is ad hominen because I am saying you are such an idiot that whatever comes out of your mouth (or by your fingertips) is going to be inherently wrong.

      When I say, “Look at you… you spent at least 30 minutes just this morning writing those three responses. You must have no life. Well, I know for a fact you don’t.” That is not ad hominen. The fact that you have no life doesn’t discredit you or your argument. In fact, it achieves the opposite. People with no lives have more time and opportunity to prepare better arguments and longer responses. Unfortunately, you are such a moron (<– ad hominen) that your longer responses are just greater blathering idiocy (<– ad hominen).

      See the difference?

      What's fascinating is that after days and days of back and forth ad hominen attacks, you complain about it now (and about something that while personal, is not a classic ad hominen).

      When you say "[The Founding Fathers] simply didn’t have the foresight to envision the awfulness of Rick Santorum. Or Tim Ross, for that matter." You engage in ad hominen. You associate Santorum (and myself) with being awful (being terrible, disagreeable or objectionable). Therefore, any — ANY — opinion we may have, jointly or separately, is going to be negative. That is how you achieve your argument.

      If you were actually going to argue on the merits… then you wouldn't have to resort to such tactics. And Lord knows you have the time to look this stuff up and write a novel of a response (<– NOT ad hominen) because you are a loser (<– borderline ad hominen) which should make you less of an idiot than you actually are (<– ad hominen).

      Reply
  35. And who’s “worried” about them, anyway? My point was that you had switched tactics to insulting my personal life instead of responding to the argumentative points at hand, so it was clear you had gotten desperate and given up on your actual arguments.

    Which, quite frankly, was your most sensible move.

    So really what I mean to say is: Bravo!

    Atta boy, Tim!

    Reply
  36. By the way, there were 985,000 units of Easy Bake Ovens sold in 2007… and there were, as Tiersky say “DOZENS OF CHILDREN,” burned by the 100 watt bulb inside the oven (yeah, it’s a light bulb like in a lamp in your house — or in Tiersky’s case, a crappy one bedroom apartment filled with cats)… Furthermore, Since 1963 the instructions include strict warnings that required “parental supervision while the oven is being used, to avoid any burns or misuse.” Just to be clear, there were 16 children that suffered burns. In other words, the chances of that happening to a child was 1 in 61,562.

    Meanwhile, 2 children under the age 14 will die (not burn, but DIE) today by drowning in their pool. In fact, the odds are double that a child will die in their swimming people than a child getting burned by an Easy Bake Oven in 2007. Why not ban swimming pools? Is it the federal government’s job to place onerous and expensive restrictions on companies selling products where the parents have failed in their duty to supervise? Is it the federal government’s job to police garage sales of everyday U.S. citizens? Is it the federal government’s job to become the Nanny to EVERYONE because of a handful of non-life threatening accidents occurred from a product where the parent failed to properly supervise?!

    Watch out rope. Watch out scissors. Watch out kitchen knife. Watch out matches. The federal government is coming for you next!

    This is the mindset of the Democrat. Pass a national law — a national ban — on a product that has been around for nearly 50 years, that specifically states “parental supervision,” where no life threatening injuries or massive property damage has occurred. It’s 100% SPECIOUS… and this is why Democrats are known for governing with their hearts and not their brains. If they’d use their brains a little more often, we’d have less banning and more freedom in this country.

    And just so we’re clear on who the culprits are… 2007 was called the “Year of the Recall” because the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission alone imposed 473 recalls… a record. Who made up this commission? Four Democrats and one Republican. Like I say… Democrats are the proud party of BAN.

    Also, just for fun, I’d like to point out that Tiersky has better odds dying in a tornado — or by legal execution — than a child being burned by an Easy Bake Oven in 2007.

    So, aside from the obvious absurdity of this federal agency creating national law without due process… this is really a matter for the States. It goes back to unalienable rights at the federal level and inalienable rights at the State level. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has no Constitutional authority to impose onerous laws on every citizen in America (yeah, I say onerous because there is literally a 28 page handbook on what you can’t sell at your yard sale with fines as high as $100,000 — do people holding garage sales even know this?!). The federal government restricts the government from what it can’t do to you… it defines liberty. There are a couple things it enumerates that says what it will do for the States (national defense, deliver mail, coin money, regulate commerce between the States, etc)… and it protects “rights” (natural rights) of the individual (not groups, by the way). States, they have the social contract with their citizens where their rights (legal rights), not specifically protected in the Constitution, can be infringed.

    Example of how it is supposed to be… If California wants to place the onerous restriction on its people about how they run their garage sales, that is California’s authority (so long as it does not conflict with the State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution). And if Arizona thinks that is absurd, then they don’t worry about such issues. If an incident occurs, then the “victim” has its route of recourse… those in Arizona have it against the manufacturer and those in California would have it against, probably, both the manufacturer and the person holding the garage sale. Aside from the judicial branch’s involvement, California’s state government would additionally be involved as they would need to impose that $100,000 fine on the senior citizen that held the garage sale. The federal government would not be involved unless somebody who lives in Arizona “illegally buys” an Easy Bake Oven in California at a garage sale or a Californian “legally buys” one in Arizona… and an incident occurred. That is what the federal government’s role would be in this and they have the power to broker the differences between the States through the commerce clause. The commerce clause was simply a mechanism that was designed to keep States from going to war with each other. Not to be used so that Congress and the federal government could impose its will on the People often in direct conflict with States rights and the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, over time the federal government has found ways and excuses to expand its own power. And that is what we have today… a system that Tiersky believes is the way it has been and the way it ought to be. A system that allows 4 Democrats to dictate to 300,000,000 Americans what they can and can’t sell at their garage sale with penalties as high as $100,000. Tiersky thinks this is exactly why the United States fought for independence from Britain… so we could free ourselves from their restrictive laws, so that we could create our own… in the name of “DOZENS.”

    Look, and I say this again for the umpteenth time, local governing is better. If there is a State that is comprised of 100% Catholics and it is against 100% of the people in that State to have abortions or use contraception, then let them live that way. I don’t agree with it. You don’t agree with it. But 100% of them do. Let them live the way they want to live. Why do you feel necessary to impose your opinions and will upon them if you both disagree?

    You claim, “Separation of Church and State,” and that no laws could possibly be created that are in tune with the moral objections and other objectives of a church. First, you’re an idiot. This phrase does not exist in any of the founding documents. It is from a Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. It is not in the Magna Carta. Not in the Declaration of Independence. Not in the U.S. Constitution. Not in the Bill of Rights. Not in the Articles of Confederation. And so on. What does exist is the 1st Amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Meaning that the Congress cannot pass a law that creates a national religion, nor can Congress pass a law that prohibits a religion. Simple. The reason? National law in Britain was Protestantism… and there were laws prohibiting Catholicism. People were beaten, fined and beheaded for not practicing the national religion… and why so many fled to the Colonies and why we had so many different religions at our onset (Quakers, Puritans, Catholics, Protestants, etc). In fact, even today laws in Britain exist that bans British monarchs from marrying or becoming Roman Catholic. The United States was never to engage in such activity, hence what Tiersky calls “separation of church and state.” Unfortunately, idiots like Tiersky think that has more meaning… that citizens of a local or State government cannot pass a law that they are morally or ethically opposed to or are in favor of because of the convictions of their religion. That’s absurd. And in many States they do. For example, try buying liquor on Sunday in many States… not going to happen. These are called “blue laws” that have been around since before the United States had a Constitution and are designed to enforce religious standards, particularly the observance of Sunday as a day of worship or rest, and a restriction on Sunday shopping. And these are laws were upheld by the Supreme Court in 1961. As long as I am not forced into a religion I oppose, not punished for practicing (or not practicing) a certain religion, then I am protected by the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment does not protect an individual from the manifestations of religious components as law (ie. abortion, contraception, etc). That’s it. Plain and simple.

    Tiersky really comes across as a religious bigot. His dehumanization of religious groups borders on persecution… it’s almost a human rights problem. As much as Democrats claim to be tolerant, they are some of the most intolerant, narrow minded, dictatorial, biased fanatics I’ve ever had the displeasure of debating. Tiersky’s religious bigotry knows no bounds.

    Tiersky would fit right in England circa 1559 and probably woulda voted for the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity… these are the exact same type of laws that made England so terrible during the middle ages and very similar to what he’s advocating for here today. They want large expansive federal government, an expanded supremacy clause, and greater reach over the entire population. That’s how backward Tiersky is.

    Reply
  37. >>By the way, there were 985,000 units of Easy Bake Ovens sold in 2007…etc.

    What the fuck does any of this matter? Here’s the only thing that matters on this topic:

    THE PRODUCT WAS RECALLED.

    Whether or not you think the product MERITED being recalled is another argument, but the FACT is that it was recalled, for safety reasons, which meant that STORES were not allowed to sell it anymore. The law you’re referring to simply said that when a product is recalled, INDIVIDUALS can’t sell it anymore either.

    Does that really not make sense to you? That when it’s decided that “This product is so unsafe that we don’t want stores to sell it anymore,” it’s also sensible to ALSO say “Individuals can’t sell it anymore either”? Is the product somehow no longer unsafe if it’s bought at a garage sale? Do you really want to be the guy who’s fighting for the individual’s right to sell a product that’s been deemed unsafe, or the state’s rights to LET an individual resell a product that’s been deemed unsafe?

    Have you really thought this through?

    >>Watch out rope. Watch out scissors. Watch out kitchen knife. Watch out matches. The federal government is coming for you next!

    Uh, right. Paranoid much? And incidentally, it’s not like the concept of the Easy-bake oven has been banned (aren’t you relieved?), they just recalled it because of the 100-watt bulb. They’re coming out with a safer version. That really upsets you? The company’s right to make an Easy-Bake oven with a 100-watt bulb has been infringed? Tell that to the five-year-old who lost her finger. And Youtube that, if possible; there’s a scene I’d love to see.

    >>This is the mindset of the Democrat. Pass a national law — a national ban — on a product that has been around for nearly 50 years, that specifically states “parental supervision,” where no life threatening injuries or massive property damage has occurred.

    You’re such a moron. You’re arguing that product recalls for safety reasons are a Democratic thing now? You’re bragging that Republicans are the party of “Go ahead and sell safety hazardous products, what the fuck do we care?” And in any case, the Easy-Bake oven recall was a VOLUNTARY recall. So blame Hasbro for taking away your precious baby oven with its 100-watt bulb. The rest of us will continue discussing ADULT matters.

    >>Also, just for fun, I’d like to point out that Tiersky has better odds dying in a tornado — or by legal execution — than a child being burned by an Easy Bake Oven in 2007.

    No one is arguing about the dangers or lack thereof of Easy-Bake Ovens. This is really getting goddamn weird. The only thing I’ve argued for in response to your bringing up this silliness in the first place is that because the product was deemed illegal to sell in stores, deeming it also illegal to sell at garage sales makes sense, and in fact, it wouldn’t make sense NOT to deem that illegal. You really don’t see that? Yes, you do. C’mon, even YOU do.

    >>So, aside from the obvious absurdity of this federal agency creating national law without due process… this is really a matter for the States.

    Wowie. I mean WOW. You’re really arguing that the States should have the right to decide whether or not it’s okay to re-sell a product that the company decided it was such a danger to children that they recalled it. Really, seriously, with a straight face, that’s what you’re doing. The mind reels.

    >>You claim, “Separation of Church and State,” and that no laws could possibly be created that are in tune with the moral objections and other objectives of a church.

    No, I fucking didn’t, and you know I didn’t, and you just wasted a bunch of words on a giant Strawman argument. I said the idea of letting the rules of the Church CONTROL the rules of the State is what’s wrong. Yes, the Commandments say “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” That doesn’t mean a law against murder is an infringement of Church-state separation. But when a Rick Santorum comes along and advocates for laws against birth control, and it’s OBVIOUS he’s doing it simply because his RELIGION is against birth control, THAT is an infringement. That’s why they don’t teach Intelligent Design in SCIENCE class. And if the idea of “separation of church and state” upsets you, there are plenty of other countries to choose from.

    >>Unfortunately, idiots like Tiersky think that has more meaning… that citizens of a local or State government cannot pass a law that they are morally or ethically opposed to or are in favor of because of the convictions of their religion.

    I didn’t say anything like that. Here’s the difference between your insults and my insults, Tim: I call you an idiot for the stupid shit you said; you call me an idiot for the stupid shit I DIDN’T say. There’s a subtle difference.

    >>Tiersky really comes across as a religious bigot. His dehumanization of religious groups borders on persecution… it’s almost a human rights problem.

    See, this is what you do. You invent something I said out of thin air. Then you insult it and call me names for it. Then you proselytize about the wrongness of it. Then you extrapolate it to such insane extremes that the mind just reels. I say “Catholic policies about birth control (policies that 98% of THEM don’t even follow anymore) shouldn’t be enacted into law.” And somehow, in Bizarro Tim’s mind, that translates to “Tiersky is a dehumanizer of religions and a bigot and an enemy of human rights.”

    Uh, okay, Strawman. Keep babbling. Meanwhile, most of the major points in this discussion go unanswered by you. But other than that, you’re doing great!

    >>Tiersky would fit right in England circa 1559

    Fucking hilarious. The guy who’s spent the whole week arguing for the contraceptive policies of this country TO STAY AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW is the antiquated one, and the guy who’s pushing to turn the clock back to pre-1965 when a married couple in Connecticut could be fined or jailed for having protected sex in their own bedroom is Mr. Modern.

    Bizarro Tim, everybody!

    Reply
  38. One other thing… this argument you have with me is not about contraception, it is with my statement that local governing is better. You like to use contraception to prove your point… suggesting that if contraception were left up to local governing that people would go to prison for having protected sex. Then, in the next breath, you state that you “along with 99.999999% of the population” oppose Rick Santorum on the subject of banning contraception (which he only practices personally and does not advocate laws for). But, if that’s your rationale, that 99.999999% of Americans oppose banning contraception, then why are you worried that it be left to the States? According to you, all 50 State would make contraception legal. That being the case, why do you say things like people would go to prison for having protected sex if all the states kept it legal?!

    In the legal world, this is called having your sword AND your shield. And you can’t have both to make an argument. You are asserting the contrary of that which you have established as the truth. You want it both ways. Either 99.99999% of America is not in agreement with you and actually there is a majority in any one particular state that disagrees with you… OR there is no threat of people (who would clearly want the law) going to prison for having protected sex.

    You can’t have it both ways. It can’t be logically reconciled. You’re wrong on one side of the argument… which is? That some people may actually desire to police themselves in that way (just as Californians decide to police themselves in ways that are absurd), or is there absolutely no threat of a contraception ban since 0.0000001% of the population advocate for that?

    Either way… local governing is superior.

    I rest my case.

    Reply
  39. >>You are so stupid you don’t even know the definition of ad hominen. It’s less about “name calling,” and more about discrediting the person making the argument by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

    Exactly! So why’d you just list a bunch of name-calling I did and accuse me of being guilty of ad homs?

    >>When I say, “Look at you… you spent at least 30 minutes just this morning writing those three responses. You must have no life. Well, I know for a fact you don’t.” That is not ad hominen.

    It’s dictionary definition ad hominem, because it’s you choosing to attack me personally and the supposed lack of life that enabled me to write those posts instead of responding to the CONTENT of the posts. It’s saying “Who gives a shit what you just said? The fact that you had time to post all that means you’re a loser!” That’s about as ad hom as it gets. And again: I’m not complaining that you ad hommed me; on the contrary, I’m pointing out that when you give up on making actual points and RESORTING to ad homs, that’s essentially a white flag on your part.

    >>I called you stupid. That is ad hominen because I am saying you are such an idiot that whatever comes out of your mouth (or by your fingertips) is going to be inherently wrong.

    When you or I call each other “stupid”, it’s generally in response to something stupid we believe the other has said, so no, actually, calling someone “stupid” in that context is far LESS of an ad hom than attacking one’s lack of a life instead of his argument. Do YOU see the difference?

    >>What’s fascinating is that after days and days of back and forth ad hominen attacks, you complain about it now (and about something that while personal, is not a classic ad hominen).

    Again: Who’s COMPLAINING about them? Show me where I complained? I pointed it out and LAUGHED at it as evidence that you’d given up on the argument at hand. And my point stands: You’ve sidetracked the entire discussion from the rightness or wrongness of letting states ban contraception into what the definition of “ad hom” is. Go, you!

    >>When you say “[The Founding Fathers] simply didn’t have the foresight to envision the awfulness of Rick Santorum. Or Tim Ross, for that matter.” You engage in ad hominen. You associate Santorum (and myself) with being awful (being terrible, disagreeable or objectionable). Therefore, any — ANY — opinion we may have, jointly or separately, is going to be negative. That is how you achieve your argument.

    Sorry, no. That’s a bizarre way to read it. It was mainly just a wisecrack, but it was also added for emphasis of my point about how awful your (and his) STANCE is on the matter. If I’d said “What the fuck do you and Rick Santorum know, you awful people” and left it at that, THAT is ad hominem. But to illustrate at length WHY it’s awful and then add the wise-ass coda that the Founding Fathers couldn’t have envisioned such awfulness? Smart-alecky, yes. Gratuitous, yes. Ad hom, no.

    >>If you were actually going to argue on the merits… then you wouldn’t have to resort to such tactics.

    Hilarious. YOU are the one who started going off topic by attacking my supposed lack of a life and ridiculing the “meds” that you keep insisting I take (even though I don’t and never have, not that that would stop you). I haven’t uttered a single syllable about your personal life. I’ve called you some names, but I’ve attacked YOUR ARGUMENTS and NOTHING BUT YOUR ARGUMENTS. I’m the one who’s stuck to the topic. I’m the one who responds to your posts point by point without bringing up outside shit like “meds” to undermine them. Because I don’t need to. Because you’re arguments show a complete misunderstanding of history, facts and logic. (You griped about one law that ISN’T EVEN A LAW, for Crissake.)

    Anyway, bravo to you for successfully changing the topic to the proper definition of “ad hom”, and thus diluting the fact that you and Rick Santorum are arguing for something truly vile and reprehensible, and you’re unable to even attempt to respond to most of the major points made against you.

    But arguing about the definition of ad hom doesn’t really stimulate me all that much, so at this point, I’ll cede the floor. But if you ever feel like actually attempting to respond directly to all the actual points above that have so thoroughly demolished your miserable stance, I’m all ears.

    Good luck with that.

    Reply
    1. Name-calling by itself is not ad hominem. Rather, the attack on the arguer must occur as an ostensible attack on an argument. If no argument is offered – there is no ad hominem (or any other kind of fallacy) at work. But I think you don’t quite have the required reading comprehension ability to fully understand this. Simply put, for it to be a true ad hominen, the personal attack must, in some way, undermine the topic that is being argued.

      It’s typical of you to take the most simplistic version of something, not read beyond that, and call that your argument. That’s natural for the “bumper sticker” mentality of the Democrat, I suppose.

      Can I undermine all your arguments by just rattling off your pathetic education, pathetic career, pathetic life experiences and pathetic life in general? Sure, but I usually tend to stick to the topic and debate you on the merits (or lack thereof) of your arguments. It’s like I am a cat and you are a mouse. And this is forum allows the world to see the absurdity, and the lengths at which you will go (and by “lengths” I mean the novels you write) to try and defend the indefensible positions you take.

      It’s like I toy with you for everyone’s amusement. Why? Not because you are a first class A-hole (<– not ad hominen), but because you are a blathering idiotic moron (<– ad hominen).

      Reply
  40. There’s a lot of heat upstairs in this debate. Let me throw a gallon of diesel on it.

    First things first: State government versus Federal government is not freedom versus tyranny. What’s the difference between having a bunch of locally elected dipsh*ts control your life versus letting a bunch of nationally elected dipsh*ts do the same? None. Control is control. The only difference is the size of the office.

    Believe it or not, I am a small government liberal. I don’t believe that the government – state, local, national, whatever – should interfere with its citizenry unless there is a provable, demonstrable reason to do so. Therefore, the government – at all levels – should regulate natural gas ‘fracking’ because ‘fracking’ causing measurable harm to the citizens in the region. By the same token, no government – at any level – should be allowed to prohibit its citizens from exercising the right to purchase contraception. Banning condoms helps no one. (And if anyone says that it causes ‘moral damage,’ I’m mailing that person an old taco. I’m not kidding.)

    But what about freedom of religious expression? I’m for it. Completely and absolutely. And I’m a f#@king atheist. However, the current debate about contraception coverage isn’t about Catholics being forced to use or purchase birth control coverage. It’s not. Even before Obama’s compromise (which unlike most of them, was an actual compromise) it only required that contraception be covered like any other medical expense. Like f#@king Viagra. After the compromise, Catholic institutions aren’t even required to purchase coverage anymore. The insurance company eats the expense.

    So what’s the problem? Catholic bishops (not the rank & file, mind you, just the hierarchy) wants the ability to govern its employees’ medical expenses. That’s not freedom of religion. That is freedom for one group to artifically impose its religion upon others. Therefore, the ACA contraception rule, far from imposing religious strictures upon others, actually removes artifical religious strictures imposed by others.

    So there.

    Reply
    1. “First things first: State government versus Federal government is not freedom versus tyranny. What’s the difference between having a bunch of locally elected dipsh*ts control your life versus letting a bunch of nationally elected dipsh*ts do the same? None. Control is control. The only difference is the size of the office.”

      Answer: Legally, the federal government does have the right (you do believe in a republic, right?). In terms of common sense, Obamacare versus Romneycare. Romneycare was passed unanimously in the Senate and passed on a 154-2 vote in the House and is what 70% of the dipsh*ts in Massachusetts like. Obamacare, passed by a single vote in the Senate after backroom deals were made, and is what 52% of the states don’t want and are suing over it, not to mention a poll just two days ago showed 53% of Americans want it repealed. Let the dipsh*ts have this crap they want in their individual states. Don’t allow a group of dipsh*ts perform mob-rule at the federal level that forces the majority of State into something they don’t want. Local governing isn’t perfect, but it is always better.

      “Believe it or not, I am a small government liberal.”

      Ummm… that’s an oxymoron.

      “After the compromise, Catholic institutions aren’t even required to purchase coverage anymore. The insurance company eats the expense.”

      No… insurance companies don’t “eat expenses.” They pass their expenses on to their clients. The Catholics may not be paying directly for those things that they morally oppose, but they are still funding them. It’s like a left wing anti-war protester that holds up a sign that they want their tax dollars not to fund bombs, but rather to fund books. Those dipsh*ts aren’t sending the checks directly to the bomb-making factories, no, those dipsh*ts are protesting that they are funding the bombs (in reality, those dipsh*ts are probably not paying any taxes, and they are so stupid they probably don’t even realize that the federal government actually has the duty to maintain a strong national defense as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution — an not books).

      “So what’s the problem? Catholic bishops wants the ability to govern its employees’ medical expenses. That’s not freedom of religion.”

      It seems lost on people these days, but getting medical insurance through your employer is supposed to be a benefit… something that entices good employees to work for certain employers. It’s never been a “right.” Health insurance or paying for your health, has always been incumbent on the individual. Even I pay for my own health insurance (which, by the way, costs less than my cable bill — so it’s not like it’s unattainable). So, an employer actually has the right — regardless of religion — to decide what their benefits are or if they even want benefits. They also get to decide what clothes you wear to your job. They also get to tell you what kind of work to perform. Believe it or not, they even have the right to dictate your demeanor and decorum. And you, for money, agree to these things. If you don’t like the arrangement, you can find work elsewhere. If Catholics want to purchase their own health insurance that covers contraception, that’s not the Church’s business. But if the Church is purchasing the insurance as a benefit, they get to dictate what the arrangement is. What is happening now is that the government is interjecting itself into this relationship between employer and employee and mandating insurance rather than it being offered as a benefit… and they are mandating the type of insurance purchased by the employer… and on the health insurance side, the government is mandating what they offer and it controls their pricing. Two major issues going on here… and pay attention you “small government liberal,” (1) there is no freedom of religion when the government dictates to that religion to fund something it is morally opposed to and protected by the Constitution to engage in (yes, this is not over and will be heading to the Supreme Court), (2) when the government controls the means of production, as it is with health care from producer to purchaser to end user, then it is in engaging in classic socialism. Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. “Social ownership” may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises. So, as a “small government liberal,” you should be floored at what is happening… because it doesn’t get any bigger in terms of government, and any less liberal in terms of freedom, than this nonsense.

      And Mr. Small Government Liberal… explain to me why the government, via the taxpayers, must pay for boner pills and rubbers? For centuries Americans have paid for these things, without complaint, on their own. And, where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the federal government is to supply contraception for free to the people of the United States? Please tell me which enumerated power that is… because all I really see in that document is the federal government is to provide for a defense, deliver the mail, coin some money and a couple other things. Not put itself between individuals and their doctors.

      Reply
      1. Time to rebut!

        Popularity does not equal facts, jack. (I’ll assume that your poll numbers are legit, ’cause I’m too damned lazy to fact check you) Regardless of the popularity of Romneycare vs. Obamacare, the fact is, they’re the same damned policy! So why is one policy better because of an a priori assumption of state level superiority?

        Oxymoron? Only because you can’t get past the labels. Let me know where, in my stated positions, you find a contradiction. But don’t paint me with a brush that you found in the local WorldNetDaily bin, thank you.

        And yes, the insurance company pays for the coverage, not the Catholic organization. Sure, they’ll pass on the costs. That’s what private insurance does with every single cost they accrue. That’s why we need a single payer system. Don’t single out contraception for that honor!

        And when the hell did paid labor become ownership? Sure, an employer gets to tell her emplyees how to behave – at the place of employment, in areas that are related to that employment. No employer has the right to dictate my political, religious, or moral behavior outside the job. Period. And as for covering health, you are actually right. Employers don’t have to offer insurance. That’s why, once again, a single payer system is so much better – it severs employment from health, so that the employee is not beholden to her employer for health coverage. However, what we have is what we have. Allowing an employer to essentially use financial extortion to forbid a legal behavior is reprehensible in the extreme.

        A couple of factual questions: You said that your insurance payment is less than your cable bill. I am a healthy 40 year old nonsmoker who works out regularily. My premium is over $600.00 a month. If you’re paying more than that for cable, I’d change services. seriously.

        And finally, the reason why the government should be in the health care business is because some services should not be left to the mercy of assholes trying to make a profit. You don’t think Medicare and Social Security work? tell the closest peshioner that you’re cutting off her Medicare payments and see whether you make it to your car before getting your nuts cut off.

        The problem with modern conservatism is this ridiuclous assumption that public services are independent of tax policy, that somehow roads and bridges and schools just magically appear. The reason we have rural electrification, a highway system, the internet, a space program, a functional military, is because we as a people decided to fund these things through our taxes. You can argue about specific tax expenditures – hell,I do all the time. But to claim, as a whole lot of conservatives do, that spending is inherently bad at a federal level is insane.

        So there again!

        Reply
        1. And one more thing… I missed the last sentence during my response – it was truly breathtaking.

          The ACA does not get between a doctor and the patient. It only makes medical care more affordable and keeps the insurance asshats from screwing their customers too much.

          And how, in the name of Pauling’s blue balls, is stopping Catholic institutions from restricting contraception coverage getting between the doctor and the patient? Right now, Catholics are the ones getting in the way. The gov is just pushing them out of the way.

          Finally, conservatives are the last f#@king people to be bitching about getting between doctors and their patients? Invasive, medically unnecessary ultrasounds? Are you f#@king kidding me? If you are for the massive intrusion of state government into the medical lives of women, you have NO. F#@KING. BUSINESS. Talking about getting between doctors and their patients. Period. End of f#@king story.

          So there yet again!

          Reply
          1. Of course, Tim, you might not be for invasive medically unneccesary ultrasounds. If you are not, congratulations – you’re a liberal. 😉

          2. Regarding Government versus Patient/Doctors & Government versus Religious/Moral Objections… You’re mixing the arguments. Go back and re-read what I wrote.

            I don’t think you understand what I am advocating here… I am advocating for local governments to decide these things for themselves. If a local government wants to ban contraception, then what do I care? If another local government wants to ban ultrasounds before abortions, then what do I care? I only need to care about my local community. And when I get the opportunity, I mostly vote for smaller government, less taxes, less government invasion into our lives, etc. That’s what makes me more of a “small government liberal” than you. And for the record, I don’t use the word “liberal” and “conservative” because I find right wing people tend to be more “liberal” than left wing people. The labels don’t fit.

          3. No, Tim, I get what you’re advocating. You want local governments to control access to contraception and abortion. The problem with that is that it’s still government control. Why have any government control on the issue? Why not allow these decisions to be made on an individual basis. That’s REALLY small government in action!

          4. “You want local governments to control access to contraception and abortion. The problem with that is that it’s still government control.” – It’s government at the local level for the People by the People. So, if the people in the community all want something — like a stop sign, or the business/government to stop dumping waste in their lake, or to ban throwing a football on the beach, or to ban abortions, or to ban plastic bags, or to ban contraception, or to ban smoking — then that is what those people in that local area want. They are sending their representatives to the government to give them what they ask for. They are happy with that… and it doesn’t affect the next town over… or the next state over… or citizens 3,000 miles away. Don’t ya get it? When it’s national, then this becomes “mob rule.” 49 states could tell 1 state that they have to take all the rest of the nation’s nuclear waste. That one state doesn’t want it all… but in local governing, there is less possibility of mob rule. That’s the beauty of federalism… and what Democrats fail to realize.

  41. >>One other thing… this argument you have with me is not about contraception, it is with my statement that local governing is better.

    No, it’s about using “Local governing is better” as this mindless catch-all phrase to argue against any federal laws. Again, there seems to be no in-between with you, no matter how many times I explain it. I’m in favor of federal laws in SOME cases, and the states differing from each other in OTHER cases. Why can’t you grasp that? Is it really so complicated? Which word is perplexing you?

    >>You like to use contraception to prove your point… suggesting that if contraception were left up to local governing that people would go to prison for having protected sex. Then, in the next breath, you state that you “along with 99.999999% of the population” oppose Rick Santorum on the subject of banning contraception (which he only practices personally and does not advocate laws for). But, if that’s your rationale, that 99.999999% of Americans oppose banning contraception, then why are you worried that it be left to the States?

    Fair question.

    First off, I’m opposed simply to the PRINCIPLE of the States – or ANYONE – being able to have the OPTION of banning contraception. The idea that some lawmakers could even have the CAPABILITY of deciding what grown adults are allowed to do in their own bedrooms revolts me. The idea of allowing the state even the POTENTIAL to be that invasive is disgusting and un-American and creepily Big Brother-ish. Why does it bother me, Tim? Here’s the real question: Why DOESN’T it bother you?

    And second…It’s true that almost everybody is pro-contraception, but it’s equally true that anything is possible. Some referendum gets on the ballot, some pro-Catholic organization pours all sorts of money into the campaign, not enough people pay attention, and BAM. We’re back in 1965. How was it that birth control was illegal in Connecticut UNTIL 1965? It still boggles my mind, but sure enough, it was the case, so to think that it couldn’t be the case someday again if the decision were reversed would be rather naive.

    >>Either 99.99999% of America is not in agreement with you and actually there is a majority in any one particular state that disagrees with you… OR there is no threat of people (who would clearly want the law) going to prison for having protected sex.

    Honestly, even if the decision WERE reversed and some states actually DID ban contraception, I don’t genuinely see a whole lot of people going to prison for it, mainly because it would be a really difficult thing to prove, and I’d like think the law enforcement and the justice department would have better things to do with their time. But so what? You seriously wouldn’t be bothered by the idea that people COULD go to prison for it? That’s one thing you haven’t addressed for a moment in this entire thread, Tim. Regardless of how you feel about contraception, you’re arguing for an America where people COULD go to prison for using it. Does that really not bother you? Or put another way: Does that really bother you LESS than the states not having the RIGHT to ban it? Really?

    >>Either way… local governing is superior. I rest my case.

    Uh, okay. Then your case sees things in only silly black and white terms in which all federal laws are bad and all state laws are good, and there’s no in-between, and everyone is either with you or against you on that. Might I suggest introducing your case to the color “grey”?

    Reply
    1. “That’s one thing you haven’t addressed for a moment in this entire thread, Tim. Regardless of how you feel about contraception, you’re arguing for an America where people COULD go to prison for using it. Does that really not bother you? Or put another way: Does that really bother you LESS than the states not having the RIGHT to ban it? Really?” – No, I am not arguing for putting people in prisons because they might use contraception. Nor am I arguing for that by extension of local governing as you so unaptly put it. I am arguing for the right and the freedom of local communities and States to govern themselves as they see fit without the tyranny of a federal government dictating every little damn thing they can and can’t do that is not protected in the Constitution as an unalienable right.

      “The idea that some lawmakers could even have the CAPABILITY of deciding what grown adults are allowed to do in their own bedrooms revolts me.” – Then riddle me this… Does it have to be the bedroom? Are you revolted by the idea that some lawmakers could even have the CAPABILITY of deciding what grown adults are allowed to do in their own, say, kitchens? Dining rooms? Living rooms? Patios? Back yards? Front yards? Motels? Hotels? RVs? Cars? In law’s spare bedroom? In law’s kitchen? In the forest with no witness? With witnesses? On a webcam? And so on. At what point (or location) do you draw the line where you are no longer revolted by the CAPABILITY of deciding what grown adults are allowed to do? In other words, when is it okay for lawmakers, representatives of the People, to have the capability to decide what grown adults are allowed to do? Because this is going to be your opinion and not based on any governing documents. Then tell me this is the way it ought to be and that you are not omnipotent at the same time, but your opinion is the right and correct opinion that everyone — an entire nation — should live by. Go ahead, humor me. At what point do you draw the line where you are no longer revolted by the CAPABILITY of deciding what grown adults are allowed to do?

      Reply
  42. >>No, I am not arguing for putting people in prisons because they might use contraception. Nor am I arguing for that by extension of local governing as you so unaptly put it.

    I didn’t say you were. AGAIN. Why do I have to keep repeating this? Seriously, why? Is it really still unclear? Once again: I’M NOT SAYING YOU’RE ARGUING FOR BANNING CONTRACEPTION. YOU ARE ARGUING FOR STATES TO BE ALLOWED TO BAN CONTRACEPTION. IF I COULD UNDERLINE “ALLOWED” IN THAT SENTENCE I WOULD, BUT I CAN’T. JUST PRETEND IT’S UNDERLINED, OKAY? DOES THAT HELP?

    >>I am arguing for the right and the freedom of local communities and States to govern themselves as they see fit without the tyranny of a federal government dictating every little damn thing they can and can’t do that is not protected in the Constitution as an unalienable right.

    Exactly…That’s what boggles my mind. You are arguing against the “tyranny” of the federal government and FOR the right of the STATE government… TO BE TYRANNICAL. What the fuck could be more “tyrannical” than making laws about what people can and can’t do in their own bedrooms? Seriously, that’s probably the most un-libertarian thing I’ve ever heard. Could anything be MORE invasive than that? Maybe if the government could shrink cops down and inject them into your bloodstream, that would be more invasive, but since that’s not yet possible, I’m gonna have to say no, it doesn’t get more invasive than that. And you’re arguing FOR the states to be allowed be that invasive…in the name of fighting tyranny. It’s just jaw-dropping.

    >>And so on. At what point (or location) do you draw the line where you are no longer revolted by the CAPABILITY of deciding what grown adults are allowed to do?

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at with this, but basically, I’m opposed to ANY laws that ban actions and behavior that doesn’t hurt anyone else, doesn’t impinge on anyone else’s rights. Some of these I feel more strongly about than others, obviously. I’m opposed to laws against internet gambling, for example, because I fail to see how that hurts anybody else. But I’m significantly MORE opposed to the government invading people’s private sex lives, because that invades a far more fundamental right.

    So your question was where do I draw the line? Why does there have to be a line? I’m opposed to the freedoms of individuals of being restricted for moralistic reasons. It’s not the government’s job to moralize, it’s the government’s job to protect the rights of its citizens. And that’s all such a ban on contraception it would be, just Santorum trying to restrict non-procreative sex because he thinks it “wrong.” And THAT’S why separation of church and state is so important, because different religions have different ideas of what “wrong” is, so once you open up THAT Pandora’s Box, there’s no shutting it. Once we allow Catholic rules to influence the laws about birth control, why not allow Jewish rules to influence laws about driving on Saturday? Or Amish rules about using electricity? See what a slippery slope this is?

    >>Then tell me this is the way it ought to be and that you are not omnipotent at the same time, but your opinion is the right and correct opinion that everyone — an entire nation — should live by.

    There you go with the “omnipotent” thing again. It’s so goddamn weird. I have an opinion that there are things that we have a fundamental right to, so therefore should not be banned by the states…so that means I think I’m omnipotent? YOU have an opinion that some things SHOULD be allowed to be banned by the states…but that doesn’t imply that YOU think you’re omnipotent?

    Here’s a thought: Why don’t we both agree that NEITHER of us thinks that merely having an opinion is omnipotent, and then we can actually discuss this thing on points, like what the Constitution and the amendments say, what history shows, what common sense dictates, things like that? Crazy idea, I know.

    >>At what point do you draw the line where you are no longer revolted by the CAPABILITY of deciding what grown adults are allowed to do?

    Again: I have no problem with laws that protect people’s rights. If I thought that banning birth control would protect anyone’s rights, I’d give it a second thought. But it doesn’t, so I don’t. There’s absolutely NO REASON to ban birth control, and there’s at least TEN solid reasons NOT to ban birth control that I could list right off the top of my head.

    So I guess that’s where I draw the line, Tim: If it doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights, don’t ban it, particularly if it’s a basic human right like doing whatever the fuck you want in the privacy of your own bedroom.

    Happy now?

    And incidentally, here’s a question I asked you WAY up-thread that you never answered: Is there anything, in your opinion…ANYTHING AT ALL…that the federal government SHOULD be able to say “Hey, no, don’t ban that”? Anything at all that is such a fundamental right, that you would object to leaving it up to the States, and that it would bother you at all if one of them banned it?

    Which is to say: Where do YOU draw the line?

    Reply
  43. I am going to play devil’s advocate in order to show you how absurd you and your thought process is:

    You believe that the federal government has a right to ban the sales of Easy Bake Ovens at every garage sale across the country because it would to save 0.0016% children from some burns (that their parents are really responsible for because of their improper supervision)… Presuming you are basing your argument that in the name of child safety, a ban is necessary.

    Then you argue that birth control is harmless and the right of two consenting adults because nobody gets hurt. Therefore, no national ban, state ban, or local ban is warranted. You omit that it may harm a person’s religious or moral conscious, but let’s set that aside.

    Then how do you reconcile the following fact:

    Birth control killed a minor — not burned a minor, but KILLED a minor — Ashley Lewis, a 17-year-old high school junior from St. Louis who died in 2003 from birth control. In fact, Complaints filed on behalf of 4,000 women filed complaints… just a few more than A COUPLE DOZEN, wouldn’t you say? In fact, every woman (and now many minors WITHOUT parental consent) that go on birth-control are at an increased risk of strokes, blood clots, high blood pressure, heart attacks, gallbladder disease, vision problems, and liver tumors.

    I mean, really, a consenting adult supervising their child playing with an Easy Bake Oven should be banned in your opinion, but birth control, which has harmed thousands and even killed women — minors — should not be banned? How do you reconcile this?

    Again, I don’t need to reconcile that crap because I don’t base my opinions on how my specious brain is thinking today, or that I think I know better than everyone else, or that I believe in a large centralized government. I don’t… Instead, I say let the local governments decide this crap for themselves. They can have the liberty and deal with the consequences if they so choose, or they can have the tyranny with fewer consequences if they so choose. What they shouldn’t have to deal with is the mob rule of other States, or the tyranny of a few at the federal level thousands of miles away, dictating how they govern themselves.

    “Is there anything, in your opinion…ANYTHING AT ALL…that the federal government SHOULD be able to say “Hey, no, don’t ban that”? – Answer: Anything that tramples on the unalienable rights of an individual.

    Reply
  44. >>You believe that the federal government has a right to ban the sales of Easy Bake Ovens at every garage sale across the country because it would to save 0.0016% children from some burns (that their parents are really responsible for because of their improper supervision)… Presuming you are basing your argument that in the name of child safety, a ban is necessary.

    Wrong already. Not what I said. See why the word “Strawman” has come up so much?

    I have not made a comment on the rightness or wrongness of banning Easy-bake ovens in the name of child safety.

    None. Not one word. Once again, since apparently, you just plain can’t fucking read:

    Once we accept the fact that a product is recalled FROM STORES, such as the Easy-bake oven WAS, and banned from being sold BY STORES for safety reasons, it logically follows that it would also be banned from being re-sold by INDIVIDUALS, such as at garage sales.

    Seriously, that’s it. That’s all I’ve said on this ridiculously tangential topic. If you can’t sell it in a store because it’s been deemed unsafe, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT’S GENUINELY UNSAFE OR NOT, it a) makes sense that you can’t re-sell it anywhere else; and b) would actually NOT make sense if you could.

    You really don’t see that? That there’s so much this concern about this thing that they take it out of the stores, but they shrug their shoulders at it being sold at garage sales? That makes sense to you? I mean, if a CAR got recalled because they found that its brakes were faulty, wouldn’t you want it taken out of the sales circulation? Wouldn’t you want them no longer on the road? Wouldn’t you want the company to stop selling them until the problem was fixed? And if so…then wouldn’t you ALSO want individuals to not be selling them until the problem was fixed?

    See the basic, common logic there? Or is that still “tyranny” in your eyes?

    >>Then you argue that birth control is harmless and the right of two consenting adults because nobody gets hurt.

    My argument is that it shouldn’t be banned because it doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights.

    >>You omit that it may harm a person’s religious or moral conscious, but let’s set that aside.

    Yes, let’s, because that too is a slippery slope. Once we start banning things because someone, somewhere might be offended for religious reasons, we’re living in about as tyrannical a society imaginable. Because anyone, anywhere, could claim that pretty much ANYTHING could harm their “religious or moral conscious.” You can’t POSSIBLY be advocating for such a scenario. You’re just blowing smoke now. But go on?

    >>Birth control killed a minor — not burned a minor, but KILLED a minor — Ashley Lewis, a 17-year-old high school junior from St. Louis who died in 2003 from birth control. In fact, Complaints filed on behalf of 4,000 women filed complaints… just a few more than A COUPLE DOZEN, wouldn’t you say?

    Again, it’s another Strawman. I haven’t said ANYWHERE that the reason to not ban birth control is that it’s never hurt anyone. And conversely, are YOU making the argument that it IS okay to ban birth control because it HAS hurt someone (and I don’t know the details of the case you’re referring to, so I’m giving it the benefit of the doubt for the moment, probably mistakenly…)?

    In that case, let’s ban alcohol. Let’s ban cars. Let’s ban cigarettes. Let’s ban knives. Let’s ban operations during which anyone has died. Let’s ban anything that’s ever fell on anyone and harmed them.

    This is just stupid. You know fucking well that I’M not making the argument you’re saying I’m making, any more than YOU are making the opposite argument. ONCE AGAIN, because you have so much trouble with reading:

    I am against banning anything that does not infringe on anyone’s rights. Birth control, aside from all the good it does, DOES NOT INFRINGE ON ANYONE’S RIGHTS. Not the people using it, not the people disapproving of it. If they disapprove, they don’t have to use it. That’s how a free society works. It’s THAT. FUCKING. SIMPLE.

    >>In fact, every woman (and now many minors WITHOUT parental consent) that go on birth-control are at an increased risk of strokes, blood clots, high blood pressure, heart attacks, gallbladder disease, vision problems, and liver tumors.

    That’s actually a load of crap. Ideological pponents been saying that ever since the Pill came out, but nothing’s ever been proven, or come close to being proven, even after the 1970 Gaylord Nelson hearings that explored exactly that subject. But what IS known for a fact is all the health BENEFITS of the Pill. To wit:

    http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/thepill/a/otherbenorcontr.htm

    >>Instead, I say let the local governments decide this crap for themselves. They can have the liberty and deal with the consequences if they so choose, or they can have the tyranny with fewer consequences if they so choose.

    Right, exactly. You care more about the “tyranny” of the states having to ban something than you do about the ACTUAL tyranny of the states banning something as basic and private as a couple having protected sex in their bedroom. I’m saying that’s seriously fucked up. That doesn’t make me think I’m “omnipotent” any more than you having that view makes YOU think you’re omnipotent. It’s my opinion that your stance on this topic is vile. Agree to disagree!

    >>What they shouldn’t have to deal with is the mob rule of other States, or the tyranny of a few at the federal level thousands of miles away, dictating how they govern themselves.

    Well, I guess that’s just the difference between you and me, because my view is that a couple in Dallas shouldn’t have to deal with figuring out where and how to get a condom because some lawmakers thousands of miles away in Washington said that it was okay if lawmakers thousands of miles away in Austin banned contraception in Texas. THAT tyranny sounds way, way worse than what YOU are calling “tyranny” to me, but again: Agree to disagree!

    >>Answer: Anything that tramples on the unalienable rights of an individual.

    “Unalienable rights”…That phrase rings a bell… Oh, right!

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

    Hm! “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are unalienable rights! Wrote one Thomas Jefferson, whom even YOU hold up as a great President.

    Okay, I’m all ears. Let’s hear your case that the right for a married couple to have sex in their own bedroom however the hell they want to does NOT fall under the umbrella of “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

    This I gotta hear.

    Reply
  45. Incidentally, the Ashley Lewis thing?

    Okay, let’s take that as an example.

    So it’s found that that particular brand of birth control patch directly caused a fatality.

    So let’s say they do further research on the patch, realize that the kinks haven’t been worked out, and yes indeedy, if the wrong person takes it, it kills them. So they issue a recall of the product, preventing stores from selling it anymore.

    Me, I’m okay with the law that says that INDIVIDUALS can’t sell it anymore either. Because, see, THAT’S THE SAME AS IF STORES SOLD IT.

    You, you apparently call that “tyranny.”

    You would say that no, THE STATES should get to decide if this possibly dangerous product that’s been removed from the stores can still be re-sold by people who have already bought it. Because the freedom of the individual to sell this possibly dangerous product must be protected, I guess.

    And I call THAT “Really fucking bizarre.”

    But whatever. Agree to disagree!

    Reply
  46. So, let me get this straight… Parents who failed in their duty to supervise their children around a light bulb burns 16 children and the federal government steps into recall nearly 1,000,000 Easy Bake Ovens and passes a law that imposes a fine of $100,000 if you sell that same item at a garage sale… and that’s not tyrannical. Meanwhile, a woman dies from a birth control patch and 4,000 are injured and it is okay for that company to pay their fine and continue to make their product… and she’s not the only one, there are others with other birth control companies. But let’s talk about the 386 women that have died from safe and legal abortions between 1972 and 2003. You want to blame the doctors in those on the cases? You can’t… many died because of the anesthesia or other risks associated with the procedure. Not the doctor’s fault. And, in California, a minor can have an abortion without parental consent. And all this is okay with you. Burn = Ban / Death = Freedom. Okay, I got it.

    Then there is this…

    Are you really suggesting that a woman takes birth control and receives health benefits?! Let me play devil’s advocate some more:

    HEART DISEASE
    The Department of Biomedical Sciences and Technologies at the University of Udine, in Italy, conducted a study in 2008 that showed the pill increases the risk of heart disease. Women on the pill were over four times more likely to have an “intermediate risk” for heart disease.

    BREAST CANCER
    At the 2006 Humanae Vitae Conference, endocrinologist Dr. Maria Kraw discussed the pill’s serious side effects. “Looking at 54 studies of the pill, she observed that researchers found that it caused a 24% increased risk of breast cancer.”

    CERVICAL CANCER
    A woman taking the pill is 1.9 times more likely to die from cerebrovascular disease and 2.5 times more likely to die from cervical cancer. This came from a study that was published in 1999 in a British medical journal. “The 25 year follow-up study with 46,000 British women also notes that the enhanced risk of death lasts for 10 years after women have stopped taking the pill.”

    PLAQUE BUILD UP ON ARTERIES
    A study on 1,300 women aged 35 to 55 found that the women who take oral contraceptives may have more plaque buildup in their arteries. The study was done in Belgium by researchers at the University of Ghent. It was discovered that every 10 years of oral contraceptive use was connected with a 20–30 percent increase in plaque buildup.

    HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE
    Studies done on 60,000 women, 35,000 of whom were taking birth control pills, showed that “a rise in blood pressure occurs in virtually all women who use OCs [oral contraceptives] for [six] months or longer.” The studies also showed an increase in heart attacks and strokes.

    LIVER PROBLEMS
    Several cases of liver tumors were found in young women who had been taking oral contraceptives. These case studies took place in the U.S., Great Britain, Italy, South Africa and several developing countries, and they show a connection between tumors of the liver and the use of oral contraceptives.

    If the federal government is in the nanny business to protect you and I, why are you okay with this entire industry being alive to damage so many women and kill them too?! I mean, you are all for banning something that caused some burns to literally 0.0016% of the children who had them and were not supervised. But you are okay with all of the above?!

    By the way, cars kills people too when they are driven by permitted teens who are not properly supervised… and stoves burn children… a national ban to recall them too? Make selling your car person to person illegal and impose a $100,000 fine if they do? Your stove too?

    And what do I call tyranny? In common usage, the word “tyrant” carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of an oligarchy over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or controls. In other words, a small number of people (Congress, Supreme Court, President, Commission) that places their interests on to the general population (nation). That is tyranny. In local governing, a small number of people are not imposing their interests on the general population, but rather a portion of the population they rule. Not to mention, in the former, they are usurping the Constitution by entering into a civil contract with individual that take their inalienable rights away (I have a right to sell an Easy Bake Oven at a garage sale, like I do a car, or a stove) and failing to protect their unalienable rights.

    It’s unbelievable that you can’t grasp these concepts. Then again, with your poor reading comprehension, I understand how you fail.

    Reply
  47. >>So, let me get this straight… Parents who failed in their duty to supervise their children around a light bulb burns 16 children and the federal government steps into recall nearly 1,000,000 Easy Bake Ovens and passes a law that imposes a fine of $100,000 if you sell that same item at a garage sale… and that’s not tyrannical.

    Seriously, you’re just fucking with me now, right? You can’t possibly still not understand what I’m saying after I’ve said it this many times. Please tell me which part of the following you don’t understand:

    I HAVE NOT SAID ANYTHING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT EASY-BAKE OVENS SHOULD BE BANNED. NOTHING. NOT ONE FUCKING WORD. NOT. ONE. WORD.

    MY ENTIRE POINT ABOUT THIS RIDICULOUS TOPIC:

    IF A PRODUCT – ANY PRODUCT!!!! – IS RECALLED AND THUS MADE ILLEGAL TO SELL IN STORES, IT MAKES SENSE FOR IT TO ALSO BE ILLEGAL FOR INDIVIDUALS TO SELL THEM.

    THAT. IS. IT. YOU. FUCKING. LOON.

    >>Okay, I got it.

    No, you fucking don’t.

    >>Are you really suggesting that a woman takes birth control and receives health benefits?!

    Not suggesting it. It’s a fact.

    >>Let me play devil’s advocate some more:

    No, because I don’t know where you got those stats, and it doesn’t matter anyway, because it has nothing to do with why Santorum wants to ban them, and it sure as hell has nothing to do with your classic Easy-bake oven argument.

    >>I mean, you are all for banning something that caused some burns to literally 0.0016% of the children who had them and were not supervised. But you are okay with all of the above?!

    Again: Your mind is incapable of translating words into thoughts. That’s the only thing I can conclude from this. Keep trying, though!

    >>In common usage, the word “tyrant” carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of an oligarchy over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or controls.

    You mean like when a guy tries to impose his religious beliefs on the laws of a secular nation? Okee dokee.

    >>Not to mention, in the former, they are usurping the Constitution by entering into a civil contract with individual that take their inalienable rights away (I have a right to sell an Easy Bake Oven at a garage sale, like I do a car, or a stove) and failing to protect their unalienable rights.

    Hmm, I see you declined to address the “unalienable rights” issue as defined by Thomas Jefferson in favor of your Easy-Bake Strawman. Can’t blame you, just putting it out there, for the record.

    >>It’s unbelievable that you can’t grasp these concepts. Then again, with your poor reading comprehension, I understand how you fail.

    Oh, okay, Mr. “I’m still mindlessly repeating, zombie-like, that you’re advocating the banning of Easy-Bake Ovens even though you haven’t said that anywhere and have explained your actual point to me in ultra-remedial terms fifty times now.” Tell me about reading comprehension.

    You are so fucking bad at this! Did I mention?

    Reply
    1. I’ll let you argue with yourself…

      TIERSKY: “HAVE NOT SAID ANYTHING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT EASY-BAKE OVENS SHOULD BE BANNED. NOTHING. NOT ONE FUCKING WORD. NOT. ONE. WORD.”

      TIERSKY: Do you know WHY the Easy-Bake oven was recalled? Because it had a 100-watt bulb in it, and DOZENS OF CHILDREN were getting burned by it… So yes, there is a federal law against re-selling a project that’s been recalled because it was injuring children.
      Your argument against this is what? That the power to ban dangerous products for children from being resold should lie with the States? So you’re upset that the States don’t have the right to decide whether or not to prevent dangerous products from being resold? That’s the sort of “freedom” you want to fight for? The states’ “freedom” to NOT ban products that injure children?”

      ….

      TIERSKY: “You mean like when a guy tries to impose his religious beliefs on the laws of a secular nation? Okee dokee.”

      TIERSKY: “Where have I attacked Santorum on issues that he wants the federal government to control? I am attacking Santorum on an issue that he wants the federal government to NOT control.”

      ….

      And just because you brought up, what you think is a slam dunk argument, something which I’ve already addressed on february, I will humor you with one more…

      TIERSKY: “Hm! “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are unalienable rights! Wrote one Thomas Jefferson, whom even YOU hold up as a great President. Okay, I’m all ears. Let’s hear your case that the right for a married couple to have sex in their own bedroom however the hell they want to does NOT fall under the umbrella of “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.””

      ROSS: The problem is that your terrible education hasn’t prepared you well enough for conversations like this one. You want to equate national laws with the Bill of Rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution. You want to equate natural law with civil law. That is why you think equally of slavery and something like prohibition.

      “Unalienable rights” are those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to another person or entity, such as the government. Our Founders refer to these as “natural” or “God-given” rights (you know, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”). The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government’s power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

      “Inalienable rights” are those rights that can only be transferred with the consent of the person possessing those rights. They are not inherent in man and can be alienated by state government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights. Citizens, by way of social contract with their state government, abide by the civil laws created by their representatives.

      The inclusion of “inalienable rights” in our country’s founding documents was debated and ultimately the Founders decided against it and to only include “unalienable rights.” That is why our Declaration of Independence reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

      The federal government is mainly in the business of natural law. The state government is mainly in the business of civil law. Unfortunately, this concept, over time, has become perverted. We can give thanks to certain Presidents over time such as John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Carter and Obama as well as a couple “progressive” Republicans (Teddy Roosevelt and Taft) who have all blurred the line. They ignore the first few articles noted in the Articles of Confederation, the original U.S. Constitution, which state, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” It cannot be any more plain than that… states have sovereignty, freedom and independence.

      What is sovereignty? It is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory or a state. It is the states which have sovereignty. The states get to decide how best to govern themselves. It is the ultimate protection from tyranny in its various forms such an oligarchy to a plutarchy to a meritarchy to a technoarchy… and so on.

      To ignore the U.S. Constitution — the notion that inalienable rights exist at the state level due to their inherent right to sovereignty — is to invite a form of imperialism. You think it is fine because there are a handful of positive examples where national laws have banned certain activities in the name of “social justice.” But you fail to recognize the flip side of the argument. It is precisely the combination of a large centralized government’s ability to impose national laws in the name of “social justice” that paved the path to Fascism.

      The bottom line is that U.S. federal government does not have the right or the jurisdiction, according to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to ban anything (except to ban itself from certain activities — as it should be). In fact, it has a duty to protect my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By contrast, each individual state, by the authority vested upon them from the U.S. Constitution, has the sovereignty to enter into the social contract with its citizens to shape behavior through a process that allows the legal transfer such consent.

      In terms of having protected sex in your bedroom as an unalienable right, that doesn’t meet the standard. Everybody has a natural right to procreate, that doesn’t mean it is guaranteed. So, you have the unalienable right to pursue it. Everyone has a natural right to pursue happiness even through sex, that doesn’t mean it is guaranteed. So, you have the unalienable right to pursue it. But the right to privacy and the right to contraception… these are not natural rights. These are civil rights. Your right to privacy is, as we already discussed, an alienable right that is part of the social contract with your State (hence, why it is not noted in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but in state Constitutions, like Section 1 of California’s Constitution, “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” You think that privacy is covered in the 9th Amendment, if so, why do the State feel compelled to insert it into their Constitutions if it is already “covered” in the 9th Amendment? Your argument doesn’t hold water. And your right to contraception is also part of the social contract by each state. Besides the obvious (if you don’t want a disease and to not get a woman pregnant, it doesn’t require contraception to make that happen), the State has the authority to decide whether it wants contraception or not because it is civil right. There might be moral objections (like why gambling in some State is not legal or why alcohol is not sold on Sundays in some states), there might be a health risk objections (like banning shooting heroin, snorting cocaine, caffeinated alcoholic drinks, etc). But the States have the right over its people in terms of civil law, so long as it does not conflict with the unalienable rights set forth in the Constitution. Just like banning Democrats have banned throwing a frisbee on the beach, or banned Easy Bake Ovens, or banned single-use paper and plastic bags, banned happy meals, banned lap dances, banned ferrets, banned smoking in your own apartment, banned, banned oil drilling, banned trans-fats, banned guns, banned incandescent light bulbs, banned styrofoam, banned bathing two babies in a tub at the same time, banned peeling an orange in your hotel room, banned setting mousetraps without a hunting license, banned trailer hitch ads, banned advertising weapons, banned aerosols, and I could go on and on into infinite.

      Because we are such a diverse nation, it stands to reason that more Americans will be happier with local governing than they would be with federal governing. That is better for society as a whole.

      Why is this sooooo hard for you to understand?

      Reply
  48. And do we have to go through this again, where I debunk your whole list of crap?

    >>At the 2006 Humanae Vitae Conference, endocrinologist Dr. Maria Kraw discussed the pill’s serious side effects. “Looking at 54 studies of the pill, she observed that researchers found that it caused a 24% increased risk of breast cancer.”

    Once again, a TWO SECOND Google search reveals that Dr. Maria Kraw is just some pro-life endocrinologist. I love it when the side that’s always bagging on the unbiased-ness of Media Matters, a site that mostly just puts up actual quotes and video clips of idiot conservatives and lets them hang themselves reveals the sort of thing THEY actually believe to be unbiased source: An “unbiased” pro-lifer ragging on contraception.

    It’s not as funny as that Michael Fell goon insisting that his pro-lifer has more cred than FACTCHECK.ORG, for Crissake, but still.

    Lazy!

    And incidentally, no, I’m not going to let you create another smokescreen and distract from how few of the actual points you’ve even attempted to answer and try to create the illusion that somehow if you can prove that contraceptives have health risks, you’ve “won” or even scored a point. Because I haven’t remotely claimed that things with health risks SHOULD be banned, and YOU have claimed repeatedly that you’re NOT arguing contraceptives should be banned, for health reasons or any other, so this entire thing is a dumb, useless tangent created by YOU because you can’t actually answer all the points against your ACTUAL argument, that the States should be ALLOWED to ban it.

    Because in order to do that, among other reasons, you’d have to make the argument that the right for a married couple to have sex using contraception in the privacy of their own bedroom does NOT fall into the category of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” which are “unalienable rights” as described in the D of I by none other than Jefferson, who is even one of YOUR heroes, as mentioned earlier. So now’s your chance, Tim. If you’re gonna make that argument, either make it now, or admit you can’t. I’ll be right here.

    But please do not waste your time or mine with any further medical “proof” about this utter tangent that is the health dangers of the pill. What I will freely concede is that there are some definite side effects and some possible increased risks in some areas, but there are also many proven BENEFITS to it beyond contraception, such as shrinking or preventing ovarian cysts, which blocking ovulation does. There, now you can drop it, along with your ridiculous Easy-Bake Oven argument, which I’m pretty sure you’ve only been focusing on because it was the ONLY law in your whole list that you described accurately (albeit omissively).

    What about the school lunch law that wasn’t even a law, Tim? The one that in fact prompted an amendment AGAINST such a law? So the truth couldn’t have been more OPPOSITE of what you were claiming! Not even an “Oops” on that one?

    You’re SO not good at this.

    Reply
    1. Seriously, what the fuck difference does it make? Something else occurs to me, and I add it. If you weren’t such a child, or if you actually believed in the quality of your argument, you wouldn’t give a shit. And you really need new material. Even infants get tired of playing with their poop after a while.

      Reply
        1. No, it’s just that some of your posts are so dense with idiocy that it’s difficult to digest it all at once, so whenever I revisit them, I find some special new nugget that it would be tragic to ignore.

          Incidentally, such long-winded posts from the guy who used to be so obsessed with literally counting the words in other people’s posts! By god, you must’ve spilled thousands of words on this thread, and the lion’s share of them were on pointless straw-man arguments that accomplished nothing beyond demonstrating how poor at reading comprehension you are.

          Such a waste!

          Reply
  49. >>I’ll let you argue with yourself…

    That wasn’t me arguing for the banning of Easy-Bake ovens. That was me challenging your to articulate your argument AGAINST the banning of Easy-Bake ovens. I didn’t voice an opinion one way or the other on the matter, I just asked YOU to clearly state why it upset you so.

    >>TIERSKY: “You mean like when a guy tries to impose his religious beliefs on the laws of a secular nation? Okee dokee.”

    TIERSKY: “Where have I attacked Santorum on issues that he wants the federal government to control? I am attacking Santorum on an issue that he wants the federal government to NOT control.”

    How the fuck is that a conflict? In the first quote, I’m saying that he wants to impose his religious beliefs on the nation by giving the power to the States to ban contraception. In the second quote, I’m saying he wants to lessen the power of the federal government by giving the power to the States to ban contraception.

    Oh right, you don’t give a shit about context. Holy crap, are you not good at this.

    >>In terms of having protected sex in your bedroom as an unalienable right, that doesn’t meet the standard.

    According to the Declaration of Independence, which lists among “unalienable rights”: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    So copying and re-pasting all that crap doesn’t cut it, Tim. That may be your case for why having sex in the privacy of one’s own bedroom isn’t an unalienable right, but it’s NOT a case for why it doesn’t fall under the categories of “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Which was the question.

    So you’re 0 for 3 on that post, but I understand at this point how awful your reading comprehension skills are, so I’ll give you another shot. Again, it’s real simple:

    Jefferson lists “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” among our unalienable rights.

    a) Do you agree or disagree?
    b) If you agree, then how do you make the case that having sex with one’s spouse in one’s own bedroom with whatever contraceptive protection you want doesn’t fall into that category.
    c) If you disagree, just say so, by all means. Tell us how wrong Thomas Jefferson is and how right YOU are with regard to the definition of unalienable rights.

    I’ll be right here.

    Reply
    1. Enjoyed watching you argue with yourself… and then comment on it! That was seriously the most fun I’ve had all thread long.

      You forgot to comment on this one:

      TIERSKY: “HAVE NOT SAID ANYTHING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT EASY-BAKE OVENS SHOULD BE BANNED. NOTHING. NOT ONE FUCKING WORD. NOT. ONE. WORD.”

      TIERSKY: Do you know WHY the Easy-Bake oven was recalled? Because it had a 100-watt bulb in it, and DOZENS OF CHILDREN were getting burned by it… So yes, there is a federal law against re-selling a project that’s been recalled because it was injuring children.
      Your argument against this is what? That the power to ban dangerous products for children from being resold should lie with the States? So you’re upset that the States don’t have the right to decide whether or not to prevent dangerous products from being resold? That’s the sort of “freedom” you want to fight for? The states’ “freedom” to NOT ban products that injure children?”

      Please, entertain me some more you clown.

      “So copying and re-pasting all that crap doesn’t cut it, Tim.” – I copied some stuff and pasted a couple paragraphs — because it was asked and answered — and I added a lot more to it all. Maybe you should actually read it before commenting.

      “Jefferson lists “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” among our unalienable rights.
      a) Do you agree or disagree?
      b) If you agree, then how do you make the case that having sex with one’s spouse in one’s own bedroom with whatever contraceptive protection you want doesn’t fall into that category.
      c) If you disagree, just say so, by all means. Tell us how wrong Thomas Jefferson is and how right YOU are with regard to the definition of unalienable rights.”

      – Again, asked and answered, read above.

      Seriously, that is a new low for your poor reading comprehension.

      Reply
  50. >>You think that privacy is covered in the 9th Amendment, if so, why do the State feel compelled to insert it into their Constitutions if it is already “covered” in the 9th Amendment?

    Ha! You’re so lazy you even re-pasted THIS pile of crap, despite how thoroughly demolished it was above.

    Or are you still standing behind it? In which case, okay, I’ll put it to you:

    Why did California feel compelled to insert freedom of the press and freedom of speech into its Constitution if it is already “covered” in the 1st Amendment?

    This I gotta hear!

    Reply
    1. Hey scatterbrain, it is easier to respond to all your nonsense if you can keep it in a single posting… do you seriously have the time to go into various tangents on this thread? This sums you up> Poor reading comprehension, no life and a scatterbrain.

      “Why did California feel compelled to insert freedom of the press and freedom of speech into its Constitution if it is already “covered” in the 1st Amendment? This I gotta hear.” – Because it is mainly a one way street, not a two way street. The State Constitution reflects the U.S. Constitution’s unalienable rights, then adds its inalienable rights. The U.S. Constitution lays out unalienable rights, and it cannot add inalienable rights from an individual state (unless by amendment which, should’ve been — according to the Articles of Confederation — unanimous, but rather is by 2/3rd Congress & 3/4ths the states).

      It’s pretty simple, really. That’s why I am not surprised you don’t understand.

      Reply
      1. Fine, here we are at yet another attempt at a smokescreen, a dilution, a pointless tangent. Tim can’t respond to the arguments at hand, so instead he’d rather talk about, of all things, that I sometimes express myself in more than one post. Holy fucking crap, have you hit the bottom of the barrel.

        >>Because it is mainly a one way street, not a two way street. The State Constitution reflects the U.S. Constitution’s unalienable rights, then adds its inalienable rights.

        And yet, you made the complete OPPOSITE argument with regard to the NINTH amendment and the right to privacy, was my point. Suddenly, it makes perfect sense for a state constitution to repeat something that’s in the US Constitution!

        My God, are you fucking bad at this.

        Reply
  51. >>Because we are such a diverse nation, it stands to reason that more Americans will be happier with local governing than they would be with federal governing. That is better for society as a whole. Why is this sooooo hard for you to understand?

    Why is it so hard for YOU to understand that the Founding Fathers devised a system that is a COMBINATION of federal and local governing. That there’s some stuff that ALL the states must abide by…Hence: UNITING them…and other stuff that they’re allowed to differ on. Why keep talking about it like it’s this all-or-nothing CHOICE between the two? An 8th grader could explain to you how it’s nothing of the sort, and yet, you’ve made it the cornerstone of your argument.

    It’s just fucking bizarre.

    Reply
  52. >>You forgot to comment on this one:

    No, I didn’t. Learn to read. What the fuck do you think THIS was in response to:

    “That wasn’t me arguing for the banning of Easy-Bake ovens. That was me challenging your to articulate your argument AGAINST the banning of Easy-Bake ovens. I didn’t voice an opinion one way or the other on the matter, I just asked YOU to clearly state why it upset you so.”

    Seriously, learn to read.

    >>Again, asked and answered, read above.

    Sorry, no, it isn’t. There we are, you’ve now had several chances to explain how having sex in the privacy of one’s bedroom doesn’t fall under “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, and you whiffed at them all.

    Thanks for playing!

    Reply
  53. >>Please, entertain me some more you clown.

    Love it, incidentally. You make three lame attempts to point out me contradicting myself, and I demonstrate quite clearly how you got ALL THREE of them wrong, and then your response to THAT is to wussily decline comment on two of them and pretend to not even SEE the third…but I’M the clown.

    Then why is everyone laughing at YOU?

    Reply
  54. >>And, where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the federal government is to supply contraception for free to the people of the United States?

    You directed this to MCH, but I just gotta say…

    STILL unclear on the whole “unenumerated rights” thing eh? STILL don’t get the 9th amendment?

    I don’t blame you, it’s very long and complicated. Here it is:

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

    Ladies and gentlemen, another Tim Ross Moment of Derp. Enjoy.

    Reply
  55. And just because I KNOW you’re gonna try to Strawman this one…

    The above does NOT mean I’m saying that free condoms is an unenumerated right; the point is simply that the argument “Where in the Constitution does it say…” is a moot question, thanks to the 9th amendment. The Constitution doesn’t mention marriage either. Does that mean we don’t have the right to get married?

    No, it means that we DO, but it’s one of those rights that’s so bleeding obvious that they didn’t bother to list it. (Kind of like the right of married couples to have protected sex? Yup!)

    Hence…the 9th amendment.

    Doy.

    Reply
  56. >>If a local government wants to ban contraception, then what do I care?

    I’ve answered this; I’ve explained to you why your so totally wrong about this, yet you keep asking. The mind just reels.

    Do you REALLY not see how a lack of access to contraceptives in one state would lead to a rise in things like poverty, illness, crime, unwanted children, social safety net recipients, and a whole bunch of other things in that state that Republicans profess to be against that would then come out of the pockets of the taxpayers in OTHER states? That if one state goes to the shitter, it affects us ALL?

    Are you just plain not clear on the whole “United States” thing?

    Cause that would explain a lot.

    Reply
  57. 7 new posts… you’re a real scatterbrain! Are you realizing that your attempt to win on pure lengthy attrition isn’t working, so you need to start breaking your points into separate posts and tangents multiplying your effort of attrition?!

    “Why is it so hard for YOU to understand that the Founding Fathers devised a system that is a COMBINATION of federal and local governing.” – No, that’s what we’ve become, not what they devised. I’ve already explained this above, but you can’t seem to get it through your thick skull, and if I repost it again, you will be critical. So, scroll up and read — err, at least do your best.

    “There we are, you’ve now had several chances to explain how having sex in the privacy of one’s bedroom doesn’t fall under “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, and you whiffed at them all.” – Because you you have really poor reading comprehension, I’ll try again: “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are unalienable rights. In terms of having protected sex in your bedroom as an unalienable right, that doesn’t meet the standard. Everybody has a natural right to procreate, that doesn’t mean it is guaranteed. So, you have the unalienable right to pursue it. Everyone has a natural right to pursue happiness even through sex, that doesn’t mean it is guaranteed. So, you have the unalienable right to pursue it. But the right to privacy and the right to contraception… these are not natural rights. These are civil rights. Your right to privacy is, as we already discussed, an alienable right that is part of the social contract with your State (hence, why it is not noted in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but in state Constitutions, like Section 1 of California’s Constitution, “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” And your right to contraception is also part of the social contract by each state. Besides the obvious (if you don’t want a disease and to not get a woman pregnant, it doesn’t require contraception to make that happen), the State has the authority to decide whether it wants contraception or not because it is civil right. There might be moral objections (like why gambling in some State is not legal or why alcohol is not sold on Sundays in some states), there might be a health risk objections (like banning shooting heroin, snorting cocaine, caffeinated alcoholic drinks, etc). But the States have the right over its people in terms of civil law, so long as it does not conflict with the unalienable rights set forth in the Constitution. Just like banning Democrats have banned throwing a Frisbee on the beach, or banned Easy Bake Ovens, or banned single-use paper and plastic bags, banned happy meals, banned lap dances, banned ferrets, banned smoking in your own apartment, banned, banned oil drilling, banned trans-fats, banned guns, banned incandescent light bulbs, banned Styrofoam, banned bathing two babies in a tub at the same time, banned peeling an orange in your hotel room, banned setting mousetraps without a hunting license, banned trailer hitch ads, banned advertising weapons, banned aerosols, and I could go on and on into infinite. See what I mean when I say, “Asked and Answered?” Chalk it up to your reading disability.

    “You forgot to comment on this one” versus “No, I didn’t. Learn to read.” Dude, learn to consolidate your comments. Following your multiple threads is overly exhausting. You know, some of us actually have lives. We’re all not like you.

    “The above does NOT mean I’m saying that free condoms is an unenumerated right; the point is simply that the argument “Where in the Constitution does it say…” is a moot question, thanks to the 9th amendment. The Constitution doesn’t mention marriage either. Does that mean we don’t have the right to get married? No, it means that we DO, but it’s one of those rights that’s so bleeding obvious that they didn’t bother to list it. (Kind of like the right of married couples to have protected sex? Yup!)” – Free rubbers and boner pills are not an enumerated power?! What?! Newsflash everyone. By the way, States handle marriage, not the federal government, idiot. It’s a power resigned to the States because it is — get this — an inalienable right. In fact, it can even be found in California’s Constitution. And some State, like California, say marriage is not a natural right and that any certain marriages are not a right… three people cannot be married, gays in some states, marriage between person and objects or animals, etc. There are limits and the states decide these, not the federal government. The federal government has no business in marriage and why I argue against DOMA. Quite simply, each State in the Union is sovereign as to all the powers reserved. Why? Because the United States have no claim to any authority but such as the States have surrendered to them. If a State rejects rubbers, boner pills and certain marriages, it’s there right… and not a right protected in the 9th amendment. Where the federal government is supposed to have authority is where it does courtesy the commerce clause. It is designed to stop states from fighting each other when there are transactions between the states and the laws are different — they become a sort of arbiters. The 9th amendment is not a blanket clause providing the federal government authority over inalienable rights. That’s what Britain was doing and what the Founders were trying to avoid.

    “Do you REALLY not see how a lack of access to contraceptives in one state would lead to a rise in things like poverty, illness, crime, unwanted children, social safety net recipients, and a whole bunch of other things in that state that Republicans profess to be against that would then come out of the pockets of the taxpayers in OTHER states? That if one state goes to the shitter, it affects us ALL?” – This is where your specious mind takes over. Can’t you see that cars kill people? Swimming pools kill children? It’s not the federal government’s job to fix all the ills of society… it is their job to make sure your unalienable rights are protected as well as what is enumerated and amended. And at what point does personal responsibility kick in for? When is the federal government not in your business telling you what you can and can’t do every step of the way for you? And that when the state begins to provide to some, they must take from others… and in a society where liberty is its cornerstone, it can’t be giving and taking. Beside, it’s not in the U.S. Constitution. The remedies for those things are in the North Korean Constitution (your paradise, remember?). I am still willing to help you pack your bags and cats.

    “You make three lame attempts to point out me contradicting myself, and I demonstrate quite clearly how you got ALL THREE of them wrong,” – …Oh, you “demonstrate quite clearly…” according to you. LOL. Thanks for the additional laugh, clown.

    Reply
  58. >>7 new posts… you’re a real scatterbrain! Are you realizing that your attempt to win on pure lengthy attrition isn’t working, so you need to start breaking your points into separate posts and tangents multiplying your effort of attrition?!

    Do you have any idea the reek of desperation this is giving off? Is this your new thing now? Too lazy to do word counts anymore, so now it’s post counts? Sweet Jesus, this is sad.

    >>“Why is it so hard for YOU to understand that the Founding Fathers devised a system that is a COMBINATION of federal and local governing.” – No, that’s what we’ve become, not what they devised.

    Sorry, no. Here’s just one of the powers granted Congress by the Constitution:

    “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. ”

    Seriously, why do you hate the Constitution so much? What did it ever do to you?

    >>“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are unalienable rights. In terms of having protected sex in your bedroom as an unalienable right, that doesn’t meet the standard…”

    Sorry, no. You keep fucking this up. It’s just uncanny. I ask you how sex in the privacy of one’s own bedroom DON’T fall into the category of “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, and you launch into your tirade about how it’s not an “unalienable right.” THAT’S NOT THE FUCKING QUESTION. The question, AGAIN, is how does it not qualify as “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? Forget the whole “unalienable rights” thing for a second. If you use the phrase “unalienable rights” in your answer, you’ve fucked it up again. It’s really that simple. No one’s asking you if it’s an unalienable right or not. The question, AGAIN, is: Wouldn’t having sex in the privacy of one’s bedroom count as being included in “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? It’s a YES OR NO QUESTION, for fuck’s sake.

    >>By the way, States handle marriage, not the federal government, idiot.

    Jesus fucking Christ, I knew you’d miss the point.

    Once again, because you’re so goddamn slow:

    The 9th amendment is what makes “Where does it say in the Constitution…” a moot question. It doesn’t matter what example you use, marriage or anything else. The marriage thing upsets you? Fine, fill in the blank with something else. You have the right to walk down the street without getting punched in the face. Happy now? Point is, it’s not listed in the Constitution…but it’s still a right! Even though the word “punched” doesn’t appear anywhere in the whole document! Know why? 9th amendment! WE HAVE RIGHTS THAT AREN’T LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION. Doy.

    >>The federal government has no business in marriage and why I argue against DOMA.

    DOMA is what gives the states the permission to ban gay marriage. If you argue against DOMA, you have no reasonable means of arguing FOR giving the states permission to ban contraception without admitting to a flagrant double standard. I said that about three days ago, and you side-stepped it. Just like you’re going to side-step it again, but just throwing that out there, how ridiculously inconsistent you’re being.

    >>This is where your specious mind takes over. Can’t you see that cars kill people? Swimming pools kill children? It’s not the federal government’s job to fix all the ills of society…

    What an amazingly shitty analogy, and what a completely inept and irrelevant point. Dude, YOU ASKED why one state should care what another state does. THERE’S YOUR ANSWER: Because what one state does AFFECTS OTHER STATES. How fucking obvious is that? Aren’t you guys supposed to be the anti-tax party? The anti-“nanny state” party? Do you really think you’re going to be singing the same tune when your taxes go up because Alabama banned contraception and their whole economy fell apart due to all the unwanted children and increase in poverty and crime? Go ahead, try to tell me with a straight face how fine you’d be with that.

    Jesus, you guys aren’t even okay with your taxes going up when we’re AT WAR. But you’re gonna be okay with your taxes going up because a bunch of Alabamans had a bunch of babies they didn’t want because the government wouldn’t let them use condoms? Uh, okay, right. Straight face. Give it your best shot.

    >>And at what point does personal responsibility kick in for? When is the federal government not in your business telling you what you can and can’t do every step of the way for you? And that when the state begins to provide to some, they must take from others… and in a society where liberty is its cornerstone, it can’t be giving and taking.

    That you can say this in SUPPORT of allowing the states to ban something as private and fundamental (not to mention valued and beneficial) as CONTRACEPTION is what truly boggles the mind. That you somehow think a society in which the government can essentially ban non-procreative sex is MORE free than a society in which the government CAN’T do that is so jaw-droppingly messed up that it physically hurts just to read it. This Bizarro World of yours is really something. What an awful, awful place to live it must be.

    >>The remedies for those things are in the North Korean Constitution

    It continues to boggle the mind that the guy wants to set the clock back 50 years is trying to paint the guy who wants things to STAY AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW as the one who wants America to be a different country than it currently is. Seriously, how does that work? How does your mind do such insane acrobatics like that? “You want things in this country to stay like they are now…so clearly you’re in the wrong country!” Huh? Do you even pay attention to what you’re typing anymore? Do you even take a moment to question whether or not it makes any sense?

    >>Oh, you “demonstrate quite clearly…” according to you.

    Well, yeah. You completely misquoted me repeatedly about Easy-Bake ovens, you portrayed two utterly consistent quotes as contradictory, and you mis-answered a very simple question the same way three times by copying and pasted the same stupid, endless crap repeatedly. Yeah, that’s 0 for 3 all right, and that’s not even counting all the really major arguments you continue to cheerfully ignore and hope the rest of us don’t notice, even though they fucking demolish you. 0 for 10 is really more like it.

    Hey, look at that, I fit it all in one post! Now you can find some other irrelevant thing to change the subject to. Go ahead, count all the commas I used in this post.

    We’ll all be really fucking impressed!

    Reply
  59. You must’ve taken your pill because you put all your thoughts into a single post. Good boy.

    The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Pretty simple, right? Power belongs to the States unless otherwise delegated to the Constitution. The Constitution has two major parts: (1) protects unalienable rights, (b) provide for what is enumerated. The manifestation of the the Tenth Amendment is that federal mandates are in direct violation of the Amendment because the scope of power defined by the Amendment states that the federal government was created by the States specifically to be an agent of the States… not the other way around. This was strictly adhered to until about 1890 (you know, the Melville Fuller court – Democrats, of course). The same anti-war Democrat that brought you “separate but equal” (Plessy v. Ferguson), also brought you several other perversions of the Constitution that have woven themselves into the fabric of our society so much, dopes like you believe such extreme interpretations of the Constitution are what the Founders actually intended. Dopes like you omit certain parts that destroy your arguments, like what was written in the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers and rational Supreme Court decisions like he U.S. the on in 1992 (New York v. United States) that stated that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the States. What?! Look, I didn’t even need to go into what Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and Paine all said about the 10th Amendment either!

    “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” blah, blah, blah… – Read the whole answer above. It’s in there. I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make it drink. Again, I will chalk it up to your borderline illiteracy.

    “Jesus, you guys aren’t even okay with your taxes going up when we’re AT WAR. But you’re gonna be okay with your taxes going up because a bunch of Alabamans had a bunch of babies they didn’t want because the government wouldn’t let them use condoms? Uh, okay, right. Straight face. Give it your best shot.” – Clearly you don’t understand that States collect taxes for certain purposes and the federal government collects taxes for different purposes. I can’t help that you are stupid. I really can’t. Look, it isn’t that I don’t want to pay any taxes, I just want the taxes I fork over to the feds better go to what is in the enumerated powers… coining money, administering the government, armies, wars, mail, etc. Not to social security, medicare, bridges to nowhere, etc. If I had it my way, I’d reduce taxes by about 30% and we’d spend about 60% less at the federal government… when the debt is at zero, then I would reduce taxes the other 25-30%. I’d want to see a cap and balance amendment passed that includes a rain day fund designed for low interest loans to States with natural disasters, keeping up with the mail and war. At the State level, I’d do something similar. I could literally cut out about 50% of the State’s budget just by returning education back to the counties…. So, I would cut 25% right away while cutting 50% in spending, then the other 20-25% after the State is back in the black. And I think with more money in our pockets, it would stimulate growth, the economy, unemployment, and there would be fewer “Alabamans [having] a bunch of babies” that the State needs to pay for… you bigot.

    I love how I “misquote” you when I am just copying and pasting your garbage. Court Jester, make me laugh more!

    Good job omitting your comments on all those things Democrats have banned. You must be “really fucking impressed!”

    Take your meds, have a good night and wake up to write DOZENS more posts in this thread.

    Reply
  60. >>The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Pretty simple, right?

    Sure, once you take away “all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof,” the rest go to the States. Yup.

    >>The Constitution has two major parts: (1) protects unalienable rights, (b) provide for what is enumerated.

    And there’s that pesky 9th amendment and its acknowledgement of UNenumerated rights. Mentioned previously. Many times. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

    >>“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” blah, blah, blah… – Read the whole answer above. It’s in there. I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make it drink. Again, I will chalk it up to your borderline illiteracy.

    It isn’t. If it were, you wouldn’t hesitate to boil all that crap down to its essence and humor me. If it were, you wouldn’t keep posting that endless garbage and cross your fingers that I’ll just take your word for it. If it were, you’d answer me in a way that doesn’t mention the phrase “unalienable rights.” And if it were, quite frankly, you’d just be fucking wrong, because there is simply no way the right to have sex any way you goddamn want in your own bedroom is NOT within the borders of “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It’s practically the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” for fuck’s sake.

    >>Look, it isn’t that I don’t want to pay any taxes, I just want the taxes I fork over to the feds better go to what is in the enumerated powers… coining money, administering the government, armies, wars, mail, etc. Not to social security, medicare, bridges to nowhere, etc.

    Exactly, yes. And if one of the states banned contraception, your taxes would rise to help those very programs you hate…in another state. And nowhere in that paragraph do I see you saying you’re okay with that. This keeps happening, Tim. I challenge you to actually state the view you’re implying you hold, and you say “Okay…” and then blather on with some endless, irrelevant non-answer, and then when I point out that you didn’t meet the challenge, you shrug and say “It’s in there!” I ask you if you’d be okay with paying higher taxes to help a state whose economy falls apart, and you respond with a list of things you’d CUT? It’s transparent and incredibly lame. Why do you hate your own views so much that you can’t just state them directly? What’s with all the smoke and mirrors?

    >>And I think with more money in our pockets, it would stimulate growth, the economy, unemployment, and there would be fewer “Alabamans [having] a bunch of babies” that the State needs to pay for… you bigot.

    a) Sorry, no, doesn’t really solve the problem. If there is no access to contraception, there WILL be more babies, and a certain percentage will be unwanted. Because people like sex, Tim, and no law is gonna change that.
    b) Bigot?! What, against…Alabama? Holy fucking crap, you’re such an idiot. Alabama is a fucking EXAMPLE off the top of my head that might actually approve the ban, were it possible. Why Alabama? It’s conservative. Would you have preferred I said “Vermont” or “New York”? Really wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense, but in any case, it doesn’t matter. Fill in the blank with any state you want besides California, what the fuck do I care? The point of the example was that you’d be paying for the collapse of economy of another state that YOU DON’T LIVE IN. Again: You asked why you should give a shit what happens in the other states. There’s your answer. Because IT AFFECTS YOU.

    >>I love how I “misquote” you when I am just copying and pasting your garbage. Court Jester, make me laugh more!

    You’re a fucking child. Fine, “misquote” wasn’t exactly the word I was looking for. You “mis-applied” a quote; you pasted a quote that did not say what you were saying it said. Specifically, NOTHING in what you quoted showed me arguing for the ban of Easy-bake ovens. You misUSED a quote. Happy now? It’s still a swing and a miss. (Jesus, are you fucking desperate. “Ha, ha, he said misquote when he meant misuse! Whee! Playing with poop is fun!”)

    >>Good job omitting your comments on all those things Democrats have banned. You must be “really fucking impressed!”

    Are you serious? Your previous list was a ridiculous load of crap in which (again) you completely misstated two of the laws, only half-accurately stated what turned out to be a perfectly reasonable law against re-selling recalled products, and the fourth WASN’T EVEN A LAW. Now I’m supposed to go through ANOTHER list of crap and tell you how inaccurate it is? And even if I DO go to all that trouble, then you completely ignore my fact-checking in favor of making fun for my lack of life? Sorry, no. These little games where you somehow get to giggle and play with your poop no matter what I do? Not interested.

    >>Take your meds, have a good night and wake up to write DOZENS more posts in this thread.

    Ha…You’re adorable. What do you want for your 2nd birthday?

    Reply
  61. >>What do you care if Kansas wants to teach “intelligent design” along side evolution?

    Oh my, see, here’s one of those nuggets I missed while wading through this deep, deep cesspool that is your posts.

    How fucking dumb are you? Why should I care if public schools in Kansas wants to teach intelligent design in science class?

    Um…because it’s flagrantly unconstitutional? Because it would be a government-run educational facility blending religion and science? Because the idea of a generation of American youths being taught in their formative years that “Some Creator that there’s no evidence of made the universe” can be considered science?

    YES, Tim, when education programs in other states give in to shit like intelligent design, that means those students grow up ignorant, and someday, those students are going to grow up and spread across the country and start influencing things in other states besides their own, and then THEY in turn will help make the next generation even MORE ignorant. How do you not see that? How do you type this shit without giving it even a moment to fucking think it through?

    Now go ahead and giggle and play with your poop that I went back and found something else to rag on, Tim, because that’s really only way to smokescreen the fact that basically, what you’re arguing for, what this whole thread has been about, has been the sickening and wrong-headed notion that we shouldn’t give a shit what happens in other States. Private sex lives of married couples get invaded and controlled, and that’s fine with you, as long as it’s in another state. Students get religion-based science educations, and that’s fine because it’s another state. U.S. Constitution gets flagrantly ignored, and you don’t give a shit because it’s in another state (and you clearly hate the Constitution anyway).

    It’s so incredibly fucking warped. So completely misses the concept of the UNITED STATES. So thoroughly redefines this one great big country as a bunch of small ones that happen to share the same land mass. So utterly fails to grasp how WHAT HAPPENS IN OTHER STATES DIRECTLY AFFECTS YOU, economically, for starters, and even when it’s not entirely direct, it INdirectly affects you because WE’RE ALL AMERICANS, YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

    In short, everything you’ve said here is so unspeakably, insufferably, mind-bogglingly self-centered and soulless and just plain fucking WRONG on every level, words fail to fully express it. But I’m glad we devoted this week to laying it bare.

    Now we know what you stand for, and it’s there for all to see and reference: The United States turning into…

    Well, Europe, basically.

    Reply

Post Comment