Black and White and Man and Woman - US elections
-
I don't think people will object if I raise this point - her youngest is one year old. If she became VP it would be with several children including a two year old. This must cause a conflict of interests as a VP must be in position to take over the role of president if required as well as such things as forgeign trips etc. Elaine :rose:
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
Trollslayer wrote:
VP must be in position to take over the role of president if required as well as such things as forgeign trips etc.
I'm pretty sure her husband will get lots of help in the childcare area. He'll probably be able to continue his charity work without a hiccup. As for overseas visits - ask the enlisted women with babies how they feel about a year in Iraq. If their country can ask them to do it, she damn well can do it too.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I don't think people will object if I raise this point - her youngest is one year old. If she became VP it would be with several children including a two year old. This must cause a conflict of interests as a VP must be in position to take over the role of president if required as well as such things as forgeign trips etc. Elaine :rose:
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
Trollslayer wrote:
her youngest is one year old. If she became VP it would be with several children including a two year old. This must cause a conflict of interests
Isn't that one of the primary components of the glass ceiling that women have fought long and hard to overcome?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Rob Graham wrote:
I frankly don't give a damn what the next president's position on abortion is.
Hear hear! Some needs to tell the Republican party that the twentieth century wants its issues back. Anyone who votes for or against a candidate based on their position on abortion probably wears polyester leisure suits.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Hear hear! Some needs to tell the Republican party that the twentieth century wants its issues back. Anyone who votes for or against a candidate based on their position on abortion probably wears polyester leisure suits.
Ah! I see! And voting for or against a candidate solely on his position on, say, slavery, would be so 18th (or at best, 19th) century, wouldn't it?
-
Oakman wrote:
Hear hear! Some needs to tell the Republican party that the twentieth century wants its issues back. Anyone who votes for or against a candidate based on their position on abortion probably wears polyester leisure suits.
Ah! I see! And voting for or against a candidate solely on his position on, say, slavery, would be so 18th (or at best, 19th) century, wouldn't it?
Ilíon wrote:
Ah! I see!
'Twould be the first time ever, Troy.
Ilíon wrote:
And voting for or against a candidate solely on his position on, say, slavery, would be so 18th (or at best, 19th) century, wouldn't it?
Absolutely. Anyone who thinks that slavery is still an important issue inside the U.S. very badly needs to loosen his pink shirt and charcoal bow-tie - go ahead, loosen them, Troy. You need to calm down. By the way - Loss of jobs in the buggy-whip industry is also not something you need to poll the candidates on.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
ANd he certainly did not design a libertarian form of government.
Sure he did: it was called the Congress of the Confederation.
Stan Shannon wrote:
libertairans are NOT constitutionalists.
Got that right. They figger no-one and no-thing grants rights to the people, or can take 'em away.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Congress of the Confederation
There was nothing libertarian about leaving political power concentrated at the local of government which is what the articles of confederation largely did. If you think the colonial population were just waiting for the freedom to allow abortions and homosexual marriage, you're out of your mind. They wanted power left at the local level so that the federal government could not interfer with how they chose to govern their own communities.
Oakman wrote:
They figger no-one and no-thing grants rights to the people, or can take 'em away.
Except God, of course.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Congress of the Confederation
There was nothing libertarian about leaving political power concentrated at the local of government which is what the articles of confederation largely did. If you think the colonial population were just waiting for the freedom to allow abortions and homosexual marriage, you're out of your mind. They wanted power left at the local level so that the federal government could not interfer with how they chose to govern their own communities.
Oakman wrote:
They figger no-one and no-thing grants rights to the people, or can take 'em away.
Except God, of course.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They wanted power left at the local level so that the federal government could not interfer with how they chose to govern their own communities.
You never been part of a New England town meeting, have you.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Except God, of course.
If he's half of what he's cracked up to be, I am quite sure he didn't appoint you to speak for him.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
They wanted power left at the local level so that the federal government could not interfer with how they chose to govern their own communities.
You never been part of a New England town meeting, have you.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Except God, of course.
If he's half of what he's cracked up to be, I am quite sure he didn't appoint you to speak for him.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
You never been part of a New England town meeting, have you.
I've never been to New England, period.
Oakman wrote:
I am quite sure he didn't appoint you to speak for him.
I was speaking for Tom, not God. You know, the guy who theorized that our rights come from our creator. Which is the only reason earthly powers cannot deny them to us unless we give them permission to do so.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
You never been part of a New England town meeting, have you.
I've never been to New England, period.
Oakman wrote:
I am quite sure he didn't appoint you to speak for him.
I was speaking for Tom, not God. You know, the guy who theorized that our rights come from our creator. Which is the only reason earthly powers cannot deny them to us unless we give them permission to do so.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I've never been to New England, period.
I can tell.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I was speaking for Tom, not God.
Fair enough, but usually I find it better to let Tom speak for himself
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I can tell
Thanks
Oakman wrote:
I find it better to let Tom speak for himself
Yes you do. Everything in fact that you can find to contradict his actual political achievments.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
I can tell
Thanks
Oakman wrote:
I find it better to let Tom speak for himself
Yes you do. Everything in fact that you can find to contradict his actual political achievments.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Everything in fact that you can find to contradict his actual political achiev
It must really piss you off that there is so much evidence that he believed in a different form of government than you do. But, I must confess, I enjoy tweaking you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Everything in fact that you can find to contradict his actual political achiev
It must really piss you off that there is so much evidence that he believed in a different form of government than you do. But, I must confess, I enjoy tweaking you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
It must really piss you off that there is so much evidence that he believed in a different form of government than you do. But, I must confess, I enjoy tweaking you.
No. I simply do not care about what form of government he believed in, I care about the form of government he actually created. Besides, you've never posted a Jefferson quote I disagree with, I merely disagree with any interpretation of those documents being used to justify any thing about our current form of government, including such judicial abominations as roe v wade, flag burning as free speech, or legalizing sodomy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
It must really piss you off that there is so much evidence that he believed in a different form of government than you do. But, I must confess, I enjoy tweaking you.
No. I simply do not care about what form of government he believed in, I care about the form of government he actually created. Besides, you've never posted a Jefferson quote I disagree with, I merely disagree with any interpretation of those documents being used to justify any thing about our current form of government, including such judicial abominations as roe v wade, flag burning as free speech, or legalizing sodomy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
or legalizing sodomy.
As a matter of curiousity are you referring to homosexuality, anal intercourse, or homosexual anal intercourse. or anything other than the missionary position. Generally speaking, I am not sure that I can find anything in Jefferson's writings that suggest that the Constitution was written to give your prejudices the force of law. I do find it interesting that you spend so much time worrying about the generative organs of your neighbors, mostly in order to tell them what they can't do.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
or legalizing sodomy.
As a matter of curiousity are you referring to homosexuality, anal intercourse, or homosexual anal intercourse. or anything other than the missionary position. Generally speaking, I am not sure that I can find anything in Jefferson's writings that suggest that the Constitution was written to give your prejudices the force of law. I do find it interesting that you spend so much time worrying about the generative organs of your neighbors, mostly in order to tell them what they can't do.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
As a matter of curiousity are you referring to homosexuality, anal intercourse, or homosexual anal intercourse. or anything other than the missionary position.
I am referring to how a community defines proper sexual conduct of any kind.
Oakman wrote:
I am not sure that I can find anything in Jefferson's writings that suggest that the Constitution was written to give your prejudices the force of law. I do find it interesting that you spend so much time worrying about the generative organs of your neighbors, mostly in order to tell them what they can't do.
What prejudices? If given the opportunity, I would support a quite liberal stance on sexuality. I just want to be given the opportunity. And Jefferson's constitution certainly demands that I be given it. The laws that define our society are supposed to reflect the prejudices of those of us who actually live in that society, and not the prejudices of amy ruling elite or group of judges.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
As a matter of curiousity are you referring to homosexuality, anal intercourse, or homosexual anal intercourse. or anything other than the missionary position.
I am referring to how a community defines proper sexual conduct of any kind.
Oakman wrote:
I am not sure that I can find anything in Jefferson's writings that suggest that the Constitution was written to give your prejudices the force of law. I do find it interesting that you spend so much time worrying about the generative organs of your neighbors, mostly in order to tell them what they can't do.
What prejudices? If given the opportunity, I would support a quite liberal stance on sexuality. I just want to be given the opportunity. And Jefferson's constitution certainly demands that I be given it. The laws that define our society are supposed to reflect the prejudices of those of us who actually live in that society, and not the prejudices of amy ruling elite or group of judges.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
You keep falling back on the idea that every little town - or is it neighborhood - should have the right to interpret the Constitution and its amendments as they choose.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
should have the right to interpret the Constitution and its amendments as they choose.
No I'm not. I'm saying that the only valid interpretation of the constitution, the one that was honored and respected for most of American history, is that if it is not specifically stated in the constitution, than the power to define it belongs to the people as a collective entity - not the individual.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.