lol, I musta really missed something here.

I haven't, nor has anybody, suggested that states' rights = unchecked despotism by state politicians.

Hell, we see battles against little dictators all the way down to town councils and school boards, every day somewhere.

You've just been babbling about how the feds must beat back the fiefdoms and dictatorships in the states, about 100 different random yet repetitive ways, without any real details except to say that people shouldn't have to move if they don't like a state's policies and laws.

Well yeah, they should have to move.  If they don't like the preponderence of Mormons in SLC, or Catholics in Boston, or smelly hippies in Seattle, or Hispanics in San Diego......move.  As long as they aren't ginning up something unconstitutional, then stfu and move where everything is just the way you like it.

Don't like SYG laws  ?  Move to where they don't have them.  Don't like guns  ?  Move to where they're outlawed.  Don't think there's enough diversity ?  Move to where there's more.  Don't like the fact that a state's citizens have voted to not change the meaning of marriage ?  Move to where they have voted to change it.

Trouble is, everybody claims that everybody else's right to live the way THEY want to is hateful, racist, mean-spirited, and must be outlawed by the feds.  No, it shouldn't be.  Unless you have clear, unchallengeable proof of a constitutional breach.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 05, 2013, 04:01:40 PM
lol, I musta really missed something here.

I haven't, nor has anybody, suggested that states' rights = unchecked despotism by state politicians.

Hell, we see battles against little dictators all the way down to town councils and school boards, every day somewhere.

You've just been babbling about how the feds must beat back the fiefdoms and dictatorships in the states, about 100 different random yet repetitive ways, without any real details except to say that people shouldn't have to move if they don't like a state's policies and laws.

Actually, nowhere have I been indicating anywhere the the Feds "must", or "should" beat back the states in any form!  Absolutely NOTHING I've said anywhere involves the federal government doing jack-****! 

And if you imagine that I do so anywhere, then you damn well ought to re-read this thread's OP and this time coax some of those neutered neurons into some semblance of LIFE!

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 05, 2013, 04:01:40 PM
Well yeah, they should have to move.  If they don't like the preponderence of Mormons in SLC, or Catholics in Boston, or smelly hippies in Seattle, or Hispanics in San Diego......move.  As long as they aren't ginning up something unconstitutional, then stfu and move where everything is just the way you like it.

WHY should the citizens of a state have to move in order to have their UNALIENABLE rights recognized by a given State? 

Where, oh where, do this nation's founders, or any one of our founding documents, indicate that "it is infinitely preferable for the States to deny individual rights, rather than the federal government"? 

WHERE do this nation's founders even ONCE indicate that UNALIENABLE rights may be ALIENABLE by the States?

What you assert does not exist with any legitimacy in this country.

We did not create this country in order to create Fifty separate tiny democratic tyrannies, and celebrate the enormous variance in tyranny!  We founded this country for the purpose of recognizing individual freedom, recognizing the impulse of man to engage in a whole array of despotism.

Read the damn Declaration of Independence! It clearly states what the sole purpose of government is, not just the Federal government, but ANY "FORM" of government:

• "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "

Take a closer look at that simple clause.  It doesn't say "deriving their powers", but rather indicates "deriving their JUST powers", thus the "consent of the governed", or the will of the populist majority, does not define what the powers of government are, but rather only when those powers are first JUST, and by the consent of the governed are they legitimate!


Conspicuously, Jefferson himself, while sitting as President, conveyed this very same perspective in a letter to the Danbury Baptists.  Those Danbury Baptists were concerned that they would be legislated against because the Connecticut constitution included no protection against the institutionalization of a religion. And Jefferson replied that they need not worry, indicating that the freedom from religious dictate also applied to the state.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 05, 2013, 04:01:40 PM
Don't like SYG laws  ?  Move to where they don't have them.  Don't like guns  ?  Move to where they're outlawed.  Don't think there's enough diversity ?  Move to where there's more.  Don't like the fact that a state's citizens have voted to not change the meaning of marriage ?  Move to where they have voted to change it.

You're muddying rights with nonsense, as a result of your own muddied and incomplete understanding of the considerations.

SYG, or "stand your ground", was not a grant of the right to defend oneself by those states that uphold it, but rather a protection that a person should not be compelled to have to try to run first, before defending themselves with lethal force.  Every living, breathing thing has a right to defend its life when threatened with death.

GUNS, the right to keep and bear arms,  are in fact a right that has been recognized in every one of the states, and the original colonies, not to mention the Constitution's Bill of Rights, as an unalienable right of every able-bodied citizens.  The denial of this right is not a legitimate state authority, and conspicuously it is the only listed right from the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not (yet) recognized as also being applicable to the states.

"Diversity" isn't a right, unless one is a damn halfwit.  Though I did once rent a cabin in the northern wilds of Pennsylvania, at Worlds End State Park, and there in that cabin was a visitors log book in which one woman from NYC wrote at length that she was appalled by the lack of diversity in the local populace, and could not wait to get back to the city. I was stunned that there are idiots of that proportion, but it seems that wide ranging idiocy is celebrated as a blessing by more than just the "Lib" section of the populace.

States don't have the original authority to redefine words, particularly not "marriage" due to the fact that social definition of "marriage" is not a power.

However States can, and do, tell us when we cannot purchase alcohol, and numerous states have "blue laws", with this state of Pennsylvania being among them.  Liber-tards, who sing the blessings of "states rights", are conspicuously in conflict with those States Rights in going on a rant about blue laws, but fail to recognize that is no sort of right to buy alcohol whenever one wants to do so. And if they weren't such halfwits, they'd actually buy the alcohol on Saturday for their consumption on Sunday.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 05, 2013, 04:01:40 PM
Trouble is, everybody claims that everybody else's right to live the way THEY want to is hateful, racist, mean-spirited, and must be outlawed by the feds.  No, it shouldn't be.  Unless you have clear, unchallengeable proof of a constitutional breach.

You DO have a right to live the way you want, but you don't have a right to compel the way you want to live on others, and States have no legitimate authority to deny those unalienable rights to their populace.   The ownership of one's own body, is in fact the foundation of every right in existence, and this is violated by health care dictate.

One last thing ....

Oh, I've been here in the US for 53 years now, served my country in the USAF for 22 of them.

Been to real schools several times, finished all that I've started too.

Given everything I have to make my wife and kids happy and fulfilled.  Can die happy in the next 5 minutes knowing that.

Apparently 1000-word filibusters and self-celebration are what it takes for you to be happy.  Keep on keeping on with it  !

And there's a difference between "compelling others" and having standards in the social compact.  If you can't have the citizenry by popular vote, or the votes of their elected representatives, establish standards and limits......you have anarchy.

Gay marriage is a great example.  If you tell society and the populace that citizens or reps can't draw a line as to what marriage is in a classic, functional society, then it will include polygamy, bestiality, incest, and worse.

I know that progressives have always warbled "hahahahaha paranoia, that'll never happen".  Just like partial and post-birth abortion weren't real, of course, until Gosnell and the others like him out there.

But since the SC decision, the suits have been filed for these other groups, and the new precedence will approve their pecadilloes and perversions as well.

And now you have a nice little anarchy going, since it's "despotic" to ever draw a line for social standards.

Oh, BTW, your "conservative" schtick is about done.

Once you insist that the feds have absolute dominion over the states, and that gay marriage is a right.........uh, your little charade is just about toast.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 07:13:32 AM
Oh, I've been here in the US for 53 years now, served my country in the USAF for 22 of them.

Been to real schools several times, finished all that I've started too.

Given everything I have to make my wife and kids happy and fulfilled.  Can die happy in the next 5 minutes knowing that.

Apparently 1000-word filibusters and self-celebration are what it takes for you to be happy.  Keep on keeping on with it  !

Only 53 years? 

Apparently you want to talk about everything OTHER than the fact of the Constitution.   I'm surprised you didn't introduce the weather.

Finishing school is great, but I had no idea that it actually considered an accomplishment except for in the bottom rung of the ladder.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 07:13:32 AM
And there's a difference between "compelling others" and having standards in the social compact.  If you can't have the citizenry by popular vote, or the votes of their elected representatives, establish standards and limits......you have anarchy.

Gay marriage is a great example.  If you tell society and the populace that citizens or reps can't draw a line as to what marriage is in a classic, functional society, then it will include polygamy, bestiality, incest, and worse.


I know that progressives have always warbled "hahahahaha paranoia, that'll never happen".  Just like partial and post-birth abortion weren't real, of course, until Gosnell and the others like him out there.

But since the SC decision, the suits have been filed for these other groups, and the new precedence will approve their pecadilloes and perversions as well.

And now you have a nice little anarchy going, since it's "despotic" to ever draw a line for social standards.

You apparently did not read what I've written, or at least not understood it.

My brief reference to marriage involves a support of marriage as it has always been, ya know, what is required to reproduce and populate every society throughout history, a man and woman.  I have no problem with 'drawing a line" to recognize what Marriage is, as did DOMA. 

You might want to actually read my thread about that DOMA decision being a corrupt horse and pony show.

(In other words, you're pissing into the wind for no reason.)

Oops.

The first point of "school" is to pay attention.  This entire post of yours was a pointless gust of wind.  And you managed to not make even one reference to the Constitution.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 07:16:43 AM
Oh, BTW, your "conservative" schtick is about done.

Once you insist that the feds have absolute dominion over the states, and that gay marriage is a right.........uh, your little charade is just about toast.

Slick, the idea that those unalienable individual rights have "dominion" over the States does NOT involve the "Feds having absolute dominion over the States"!

The "Feds" didn't make up those rights.  THe Constitution itself does not create those rights! Those Bill of Rights only recognizes those rights, and only some of them, with other rights being recognized to exist beyond those enumerated, as per the 9th AMendment!  As such those rights are not a "fed" grant, not given there, but only recognized there. As indicated in the Declaration of Independence, those rights exist beyond government, and for "any form of government",  including the States!

NOWHERE have I insisted that the Feds have any sort of "absolute dominion" over the States, and in fact I've indicated quite the opposite!

What I have indicated, is that the States are NOT free to violate those rights at their whim, as RomneyCare does, and then justifiy that violation by populist majority appeal, as Romney did!  That has nothing to do with the Fed having dominion!

It has to do with the States themselves not having any sort of tyrannical authority recognized by the 10th and the limited authority of the federal government!

This is the HEART of Conservatism, and if you don't grasp it yet,  after lo those accumulated 53 years, then there's a problem with your own "conservative schtick"! 

Finishing what you start is for the bottom rung of the ladder ?  My point was that I finish everything I start, through an MA, an MS, and Air War College.  And the 50 things that I had to start and finish to get there.

lol, your teen-angst-snark is showing....spilling out of that short skirt.....

You never did address the question of what has prepared you to lecture us all.......please tell us of that PhD or JD.......

Funny thing is you appear to be regurgitating a lot of material, so you appear to know a bit, and you got it somewhere.

But my point is that you'll only have real cred if you've actually been to the real world, real academia......and not just another 20-something who has spent 1000 hours scouring wiki / et al, and lecturing on various boards.

I believe that you are the latter.  But say something that credibly proves me wrong.  I am wrong now and then, as is anyone who's making the effort.

Quote from: Trip on August 06, 2013, 08:37:31 AM
Slick, the idea that those unalienable individual rights have "dominion" over the States does NOT involve the "Feds having absolute dominion over the States"!

The "Feds" didn't make up those rights.  THe Constitution itself does not create those rights! Those Bill of Rights only recognizes those rights, and only some of them, with other rights being recognized to exist beyond those enumerated, as per the 9th AMendment!  As such those rights are not a "fed" grant, not given there, but only recognized there. As indicated in the Declaration of Independence, those rights exist beyond government, and for "any form of government",  including the States!

NOWHERE have I insisted that the Feds have any sort of "absolute dominion" over the States, and in fact I've indicated quite the opposite!

What I have indicated, is that the States are NOT free to violate those rights at their whim, as RomneyCare does, and then justifiy that violation by populist majority appeal, as Romney did!  That has nothing to do with the Fed having dominion!

It has to do with the States themselves not having any sort of tyrannical authority recognized by the 10th and the limited authority of the federal government!

This is the HEART of Conservatism, and if you don't grasp it yet,  after lo those accumulated 53 years, then there's a problem with your own "conservative schtick"!

True Conservatism is defined by the simple concept of absolute minimal federal control over states.  And smallest federal government possible.

This does not include the outlawing of popular vote, or local legislation (that you don't like), within states.  Especially just because you and other progressives label such things "tyrannical".

If anyone within the state, or lower, governments does something that's clearly unconstitutional, then file suit and win.

If it's just your favorite little social peccadillo that's being gored, no, it's not tyranny lol.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 08:39:07 AM
Finishing what you start is for the bottom rung of the ladder ?  My point was that I finish everything I start, through an MA, an MS, and Air War College.  And the 50 things that I had to start and finish to get there.

My point was that if finishing what one starts is the highest one strives for excellence, then there's a problem.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 08:39:07 AM
lol, your teen-angst-snark is showing....spilling out of that short skirt.....

You never did address the question of what has prepared you to lecture us all.......please tell us of that PhD or JD.......

Teen-angst, I wish it were only so.   I was certified to Scuba dive in '73 by U.S. Navy Standards,  not the half-assed nonsense it is today.  I dove with Cousteau's crew and actually appeared very briefly in their documentary on Manatees.    In 1983 I was atop Kiluaea's eruption with USGS and studying the active eruption only weeks after it began following more than 20 years of quietus, and it has been going nonstop ever since.    I've been using very expensive satellite geolocation with my geophysical equipment long before before it was available to the average person in GPS devices and cell phones.  And I've been using computers since they had to be programmed by filling in blocks with a #2 pencil on a stack of 3x5 cards.

I'm anything but the teen you imagine me to be, while you engage in rampant personal address and avoid any actual reference to the Constitution, and sourced argument.

And I have addressed my background, but that was among the volume material you quite clearly have not read.

I also have addressed the fact that a J.D. degree is not only irrelevant to studying the terms of the Constitution, but actually contrary to those constitutional principles, given the fact that the Law  relies on precedent over principle, and teaches the manipulation and abuse of law and principle, rather than regard for these.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 08:39:07 AM
Funny thing is you appear to be regurgitating a lot of material, so you appear to know a bit, and you got it somewhere.

Yes, much of what I've written here has been written previously, and as such it might be said to be "regurgitated", however unless otherwise indicated, it was all written by me,  with the exception of the material obviously written by this nation's founders.

Do you imagine that I have to reinvent the wheel, and recast the sword,  every time I post here, despite the fact I've argued these issues innumerable times?  Think again.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 08:39:07 AM
But my point is that you'll only have real cred if you've actually been to the real world, real academia......and not just another 20-something who has spent 1000 hours scouring wiki / et al, and lecturing on various boards.

I believe that you are the latter.  But say something that credibly proves me wrong.  I am wrong now and then, as is anyone who's making the effort.

You believe quite a lot that just ain't so, inclusive of your claim to having any point at all. 

You have repeatedly, and with a great deal of dogged determination, shown yourself to be the epitome of what is wrong with the Republican party, the vocal bastion of partisan hackery, and the resilient idiot capable of nothing more than ad hominem personalized address in a conversation that is allegedly about "The Constitution", something quite clearly you know very little about.   So far you've worked hard at showing yourself to be more moron, and less neuron, by not even once attempting any sort of referenced argument, which appears to be far too great a task for your sloppy thought.  As far as that Constitution itself, you've shown you  'honor' it more in the breach, than the observance.

However if I were to accurately phrase the disdain I hold you in, something you've consistently worked at to earn,  I would undoubtedly exhaust my welcome on this forum.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 08:45:26 AM
True Conservatism is defined by the simple concept of absolute minimal federal control over states.  And smallest federal government possible.

This does not include the outlawing of popular vote, or local legislation (that you don't like), within states.  Especially just because you and other progressives label such things "tyrannical".

If anyone within the state, or lower, governments does something that's clearly unconstitutional, then file suit and win.

If it's just your favorite little social peccadillo that's being gored, no, it's not tyranny lol.

No, true conservatism is NOT defined by the absolute minimal federal control over the states! 

True conservatism is defined by the terms, and balance established by the Constitution, and it is those terms which are being "conserved".

NOWHERE in those terms of that Constitution is the States having absolute authority over their citizenry any sort of principle of this country. 

I'm fine with local legislation, which you should have picked up earlier in my previous explanation, but you seem immune to actual learning and responsible two-way communication.   The problem is your superficial analysis does not permit you to distinguish between legitimate local authority, and illegitimate local dictate. 

While the Constitution itself does not directly indicate this distinction, as it specifically addresses the federal government and not the local government, but it certainly implies it by the 10th Amendment's reference to "powers", which also involves the recognition that certain legislation is not within the state's legitimate powers.

The dictate of health care by the state, and taking over the  de facto ownership of each citizen in that state, is not any sort of legitimate "local" legislation.  In fact it is in gross violation of every principle this country was founded upon, and which Americans have given their lives to protect over centuries.

Once a state takes ownership of the individual's very body, then there are no longer any real rights to anything, because it is from that very self-ownership, that every right is created!  Such state ownership of the individual is only neo-feudalism, and the domain of statist totalitarianism, and the United Nations.

It is no coincidence that the United Nation's intent is to use this corrupt belief in unlimited local authority, in order to institute Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, which denies individual rights of property ownership, mobility, freedom of association, and much more.   If you're not informed about this program's intent, you damn well should be.

The sovereign authority over one's own body is integral to, and the origin of, every recognized unalienable right, with all rights, inclusive of rights of speech, religion, assembly, and property, and all which that body acts upon, stemming from that self-ownership.


This isn't a liberal principle. This isn't a libertarian principle. This is the very cornerstone of these United States of America, and the denial of this is the support of statist totalitarian dictate.

The idea that one can dismiss state ownership of the individual citizen, denying those unalienable individual rights, and this is only some sort of minor "peccadillo" ....

..... is why you're the poster child for the ignorance of the Republican party,...

.... and why these ignorant Republicans are every bit as much a threat to our freedoms, and this country itself,  as the Marxist Progressive Democrats.

Try to pare it down, Dostoyevsky.  3 people just fell asleep, fell out they chairs, and banged they heads.

Yes, I'm the poster child for GOP ignorance.  A regular John McCain I am.  I think everybody on this site would disagree, but that's just me lol.

I think you're the leader of a club of 1.  You, yours, and thine.

Quote from: Trip on August 06, 2013, 10:18:30 AM

Teen-angst, I wish it were only so.   I was certified to Scuba dive in '73 by U.S. Navy Standards,  not the half-assed nonsense it is today.  I dove with Cousteau's crew and actually appeared very briefly in their documentary on Manatees.    In 1983 I was atop Kiluaea's eruption with USGS and studying the active eruption only weeks after it began following more than 20 years of quietus, and it has been going nonstop ever since.    I've been using very expensive satellite geolocation with my geophysical equipment long before before it was available to the average person in GPS devices and cell phones.  And I've been using computers since they had to be programmed by filling in blocks with a #2 pencil on a stack of 3x5 cards.

Margot, is that you  ?

There's an old woman (or more likely a teen portraying such) on the other PF that knows everything about everything, has hobnobbed with ambassadors and senators and CIA agents, has genius husbands and kids who've done everything that ever gets discussed, had every possible professional victory and award, and so on.  Especially everything about Islam and the ME, since her daddy was a big oil man and she lived in a castle somewhere over there.  And hung out with the shah, lol.

Margot, you certainly get around.  Keep growing that story  !

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 12:28:15 PM
Margot, is that you  ?

There's an old woman (or more likely a teen portraying such) on the other PF that knows everything about everything, has hobnobbed with ambassadors and senators and CIA agents, has genius husbands and kids who've done everything that ever gets discussed, had every possible professional victory and award, and so on.  Especially everything about Islam and the ME, since her daddy was a big oil man and she lived in a castle somewhere over there.  And hung out with the shah, lol.

Margot, you certainly get around.  Keep growing that story  !

This is going to come as an enormous shock to your system, but the problem is not that "Margot" is actually so elevated, but rather the the problem is that you're so sub-par.   And to be blunt, your penchant for navel lint expeditions may have gotten you this far,  but therein lies the problem.

If you actually spent the time to do even a tiny bit of research to support your position that Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment is actually valid, you might then actually advance yourself.  But at this point I am quite certain that even such minimal research is beyond you. 

If there were actually more substance to you all along, we wouldn't be having this pointless discussion.  You alone are responsible for having reduced yourself to the LCD.

This may be shocking to you old buddy, but some of us don't do "research" for the purpose of trying to convince strangers on the internet how much we know.

Whatever research I do, will be for work or academic pursuits.  Not playing 'constitutional scholar" for random strangers.

It appears to have escaped you, but I was making fun of your 1000.00 an hour and your technical magnificence decades before the rest of America.  Because I think they're both silly bullshit.  To make you feel better about yourself.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 02:46:12 PM
This may be shocking to you old buddy, but some of us don't do "research" for the purpose of trying to convince strangers on the internet how much we know.

Whatever research I do, will be for work or academic pursuits.  Not playing 'constitutional scholar" for random strangers.

It appears to have escaped you, but I was making fun of your 1000.00 an hour and your technical magnificence decades before the rest of America.  Because I think they're both silly bullshit.  To make you feel better about yourself.

John McCain, you and I are not buddies. 

The reason to do research is to know precisely how far advanced our sad status is, and how far we've gone from operating under the terms of the Constitution. 

It's a very small thing called your freedom,  not my own freedom, not others freedoms but your freedoms and those of your family.  It is  not at all "academic".   

Your failure to recognize this on your own is part of why you've been pegged as being nothing but the average ignorant Republican, every bit as much a hazard to this country, as the Marxist Progressive Democrats. 

You originally lept into this discussion to defend Romney, going face  first. 

You ignored the hazard Romney's 10th Amendment corruption of "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" are  to your very own rights, and those of your family.  That corruption is a direct threat of your right to own property where you choose, to live outside of clustered, crowded cities, on rural property, and to use your property as you choose, and even your right to take yourself and your family to some rural park, or go off to even more rustic spots and canoe, swim in a lake, hike, and camp!

Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment actually entirely coincides with the  U.N.s Agenda 21/Sustainable Development program, seen in the map below, where people are denied all sorts of rights that we still take for granted now.

• BLUISH-GREEN  -  "Normal Use Zone": (hard to see on small sized map), these are the limited areas where people are kept and house, areas of unrestricted use that we imagine to be our rights today, are reduced to rats in box.
  
  YELLOW-  "Buffer Zones": areas of highly restricted use, just basically for travel from one "Normal Use Zone" to another.
  
  RED - "Core Reserve Zones"  with little to no human use at all. These red areas are what can be most easily seen throughout the country. THey are where humans are prohibited!

This is what they want to do with our lives and our "freedom" under your application of localized dictate - that is how they're implementing Agenda 21.  This is what your brand of ignorance is condemning this country and your children to.  Over 2000 NGO's (non-governmental organizations) are currently operating within the US to implement Agenda 21. And this ignores the GO's that are already working to implement this program officially, within the government.

This is already going on all over the country and being instituted NOW, and being dictated by the EPA NOW!  This is what Obama and the Left are talking about when they reference Sustainable Development.   This is why they're killing coal plants.   

And this is the future YOUR abject ignorance is condemning my family, my children,  and this country to. If this doesn't wake your dumbass up, nothing will. 

This is the map of your ignorance.