Liberal Forum

Meanwhile, little Miss Marxist continues to bungle Constitutional issues...Well gosh, I'm just a right wing flying monkey, but I think we're governed by the Constitution, not by a letter Jefferson wrote to a religious group.And Jefferson wasn't even in the country when the Constitution was written.You moonbats are utterly hopeless.How's your Alzheimer's Disease these days, clem-troll?Just for kicks, since I am beating a dead horse: Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township 330 U.S. 1The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'.Thus endeth the lesson on the First Amendment. Clearly, the Court has identifed with Jefferson on the meaning of the First Amendment. Richclem personally dislikes this interpretation, so he pulls and Andrew Jackson and chooses to ignore the courts, pretending they didn't rule on it. Thomas Jefferson and the Courts > Richclem.I'm not asking what a court decided as late as 1946. Courts including SCOTUS have frequently badly bungled the clear meaning of the Constitution.Where in the Constitution is there any "wall" between church and state, especially in regards to the actions of state and local government?What are you saying, clem? That your interpretation takes precedent over the Supreme Court's?TU just explained where the 'separation of Church and State' is enshrined in the constitution and why.

How's your Alzheimer's Disease these days, clem-troll?TU just explained where the 'separation of Church and State' is enshrined in the constitution and why.Strange, he didn't quote one single word from the Constitution itself.So why would I care what that psychotic ranted about?Bleat away.

Strange, he didn't quote one single word from the Constitution itself.You STILL don't understand that YOUR interpretation of the constitution matters not one whit!SCOTUS is charged with Judicial Review -- not you.So why would I care what that psychotic ranted about?Bleat away.No one actually takes seriously, *ANYTHING* you rant about, clem-bat.And TU isn't psychotic and he he wasn't ranting. You simply haven't the ability to understand him.

I have cross posted this in my 'Favorite Clem Kadiddlehopper Quotes' thread, and am anxiously awaiting a reply.Once we've accepted the principle that employers or insurance providers have the right to refuse coverage of any services, treatments, or medications included in a health-care mandate that clashes with their moral or religious beliefs, (see Senator Roy Blunt's [R] bill), where does it stop? Can you be denied blood transfusions or surgery, because your employer's religion forbids it?Can gay people be denied HIV testing because being gay clashes with their employer's or insurance carrier's moral beliefs?The first is a legitimate question and far, far more pertinent because it involves literally saving someone's life in an emergency situation or integral to arguable life saving operations. However if someone wants to take an AIDS test, they don't need the cooperation of a health insurance. It's cheap and easy to get one. Why pressure a religious organization over that?Other than to exert the power of the state over their religious beliefs?Mandating birth control, which has no immediate effect on anyone's health and is also easily and cheaply available to anyone who wants it, clearly violates the Catholic Church's Constitutional Right to free expression of religion, as supported by the cases I cited.I guess you didn't really understand my question. Those were just two examples I gave off the top of my head.I was speaking more generally about the scope of Roy Blunt's amendment, which would allow employers (and/or insurance carriers) to opt out of federal benefit mandates that violate, not just their religious beliefs, but their moral beliefs as well.That could cover a very wide range of services, treatments or medications.As I pointed out, Obamacare's mandate is for a cheap, easily available product. There is absolutely no reason to mandate it on Catholic organizations, other than to make the State's values trump the Catholic Church's, other than for for sheer political purposes to help Obama's re-election.Are you really such a dense jackass, or do you just play one on this forum?Once again, I was talking about Roy Blunt's amendment which would allow employers (and/or insurance carriers) to opt out of federal benefit mandates, not just for contraceptives, but for ANY treatment or ANY condition they claimed was contrary to their religious and/or MORAL beliefs as well.Moral beliefs don't necessarily have anything to do with any church, Catholic or otherwise.An employer could deny treatment for cervical cancer, because it's caused by HPV, which is transmitted sexually.Or they could deny coverage for treatment of alcoholism or any health issue associated with drinking, if that is against their moral beliefs.

I have cross posted this in my 'Favorite Clem Kadiddlehopper Quotes' thread, and am anxiously awaiting a reply.Are you really such a dense jackass, or do you just play one on this forum?It took years of hard work, study and practice.Once again, I was talking about Roy Blunt's amendment which would allow employers (and/or insurance carriers) to opt out of federal benefit mandates, not just for contraceptives, but for ANY treatment or ANY condition they claimed was contrary to their religious and/or MORAL beliefs as well.Moral beliefs don't necessarily have anything to do with any church, Catholic or otherwise.An employer could deny treatment for cervical cancer, because it's caused by HPV, which is transmitted sexually.Or they could deny coverage for treatment of alcoholism or any health issue associated with drinking, if that is against their moral beliefs.Off the top of my head, yes, if accompanied by sufficient Free Market Reform that would ensure a wide range of competition.I'd allow purchasing of health insurance across state lines, under the power and intent of the Commerce Clause, for example.Why shouldn't that be allowed?

Off the top of my head, yes, if accompanied by sufficient Free Market Reform that would ensure a wide range of competition.I'd allow purchasing of health insurance across state lines, under the power and intent of the Commerce Clause, for example.Why shouldn't that be allowed?So, you'd return us to the system that wasn't working before the current reform. Brilliant, clem-bat.

So, you'd return us to the system that wasn't working before the current reform. Brilliant, clem-bat.What system wasn't working before? My healthcare was just fine and cost me LESS before Obamacare.

I have cross posted this in my 'Favorite Clem Kadiddlehopper Quotes' thread, and am anxiously awaiting a reply.I've already answered this in two threads.So, you'd return us to the system that wasn't working before the current reform. Brilliant, clem-bat.We haven't had a Free Market health care system in many decades, and the costs shifts, regulations and other problems from the government side massively raise the cost of private health care.Tort reform and ending the cost shift from Medicare and Medicaid alone would lower private costs roughly 35-40%.Try not to be such a lying troll.

Have you ever, EVER, complained because your "middle class and labor" representing democratic party took money from the "rich and corporate America"?It happens every year, but as teacher says, it's ok when your side does it.Hey, brain trust: Unless you are among the super wealthy, "her" side IS your side. This is what makes it hard to talk to you people. Your brains have been co-opted by your intellectual betters (folks with a 110 IQ). You run around like an idiot defending the super wealthy, thinking that's "your side." Jesus, wake the **** up and smell the coffee.

But let me be clear, while I do promote social freedoms as well, I greatly encourage responsibility concerning the individual. Meaning if you have to go get an abortion and you weren't raped or have a life-threatening birth ahead of you, you've essentially committed murder for being a careless human being and nothing more. The moment the spark of life enters that fetus, it has a future ahead of it that you just denied it. That is something you should not view with carelessness on any level.Sadly, many Liberal women would argue that with me and it actually breaks my heart at times. Apparently for them the 'freedom of choice' also means the freedom to destroy and do as they please without considering the consequences of their actions.If you feel that abortion is murder, then perhaps you shouldn't have one. You don't have the right to take away my Constitutionally protected right.You seriously think that women are making the decision to have an abortion lightly or cavalierly without considering the consequences of their actions?And I'm the ignorant one.

I'm not a Liberal. Progressive? Maybe, Socialist? Possibly , Marxist? Could be, Communist? No , Libertarian? To a Point"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789Just remember that Conservatism has many enemies and Liberals are the least of them.One quote from Thomas Jefferson isn't proof of anything. You're a leftist. You'd be happiest in France, if not Cuba.About the only thing Leftists are libertarian on is sex and foul language.

If you feel that abortion is murder, then perhaps you shouldn't have one. You don't have the right to take away my Constitutionally protected right.You seriously think that women are making the decision to have an abortion lightly or cavalierly without considering the consequences of their actions?And I'm the ignorant one. It's a constitutionally protected right for women to kill their unborn children?What the hell have you been smoking? I would think it'd be in reverse if you want to get technical!Also, plenty do. That's where a lot of this debate and conflict over the issue comes from. If every woman did it without saying a word concerning it and feel remorse for their actions, I think people would allow it to just fizzle out. Edited by Kelliak, 12 March 2011 - 06:09 PM.

I find it curious that people seem to be taking my criticisms of the far right fringe of the Republican party as a tacit endorsement of all Democrats.I find it strange that someone who claims not to be a Democrat will spend so much time spreading their Talking Point Lies.Has there been a single one you've missed?And even more strange that you claim Democrats are the party of the Middle Class, when they vehemently demonized and ridiculed the biggest demonstration of Middle Class values in decades; the Tea Party.

It's a constitutionally protected right for women to kill their unborn children?They aren't chidren, and it most certainly IS a constitutionally protected right not to be forced to risk injury and death against your will to benefit another - a right, BTW, which you enjoy, and which you would scream like a scalded cat about were you asked to make the same sacrifice you are demanding of women. This makes you a hypocrite.Also, plenty do. That's where a lot of this debate and conflict over the issue comes from. Completely unsupported crap, and also entirely irrelevant.If every woman did it without saying a word concerning it and feel remorse for their actions, I think people would allow it to just die.Yes, we know how desperately you all wish for women to suffer terribly for not adhering to your beliefs, but, unfortunately for you, they don't. Edited by Isabel, 12 March 2011 - 06:13 PM.

They aren't chidren, and it most certainly IS a constitutionally protected right not to be forced to risk injury and death against your will to benefit another - a right, BTW that you enjoy, and which you would scream like a scalded cat about were you asked to make the same sacrifice you are demanding of women. This makes you a hypocrite.Also, plenty do. That's where a lot of this debate and conflict over the issue comes from. Completely unsupported crap, and also entirely irrelevant.If every woman did it without saying a word concerning it and feel remorse for their actions, I think people would allow it to just die.Yes, we know how desperately you all wish for women to suffer terribly for not adhering to your beliefs, but, unfortunately for you, they don't.Oh, so not practicing their right to choose NOT to get knocked up isn't on the menu here? This is ridiculous, Isa and you know it.I already said I can understand rape victims and women who's lives are threatened by the birth. I don't think we should judge all women accordingly to what a given group does.However, if you had every chance and capability of preventing a pregnancy and you become pregnant due to your own foolish choices? Suck it up and deal with it or put the poor thing up for adoption so it has a chance to live a good life. Rather than deprive it of such due to your own idiocy. That ISN'T right and NEVER WILL BE right. You cannot justify it. Edited by Kelliak, 12 March 2011 - 06:15 PM.

It's a constitutionally protected right for women to kill their unborn children?What the hell have you been smoking? I would think it'd be in reverse if you want to get technical!Also, plenty do. That's where a lot of this debate and conflict over the issue comes from. If every woman did it without saying a word concerning it and feel remorse for their actions, I think people would allow it to just fizzle out.The Supreme Court stated that the 14th Amendment encompassed a woman's decision to have an abortion.That's the same 14th Amendment you'll find in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court stated that the 14th Amendment encompassed a woman's decision to have an abortion.That's the same 14th Amendment you'll find in the Constitution.Supreme Court can kiss my ***.That is all I have to say to those old, corrupted farts.And just like it was implemented by them, it can be changed by them. Edited by Kelliak, 12 March 2011 - 06:18 PM.

It's a constitutionally protected right for women to kill their unborn children?Let's break it down, son.Let's pretend a huristunamiquake has shut us all off from government for the next year, and we are stranded, relying on our own natural rights as the only force for civilization. A guy tries to steal your food. You shoot him. Kosher so far. Another shoots heroin, then drives his jeep at breakneck speed by your home. Him, you also shoot. Okay, let's keep going.You find out the lady down the street is planning to take an herb that will cause her to lose the fetus she is carrying. She's doing this for her own reasons - you have no idea what those reasons are.You already have two scalps on your belt. You gonna make it three? What are you - personally, under natural law - gonna do about her choice, freely made?That's the same 14th Amendment you'll find in the Constitution.First, he would have to read it. Next, he would have to understand it.Hope springs eternal.

Supreme Court can kiss my ***.That is all I have to say to those old, corrupted farts.And just like it was implemented by them, it can be changed by them.Uh--you were the one who questioned whether or not the Constitution guarantees a woman's right to have an abortion.The answer is 'yes'.The Supreme Court did its job.Maybe you should think about kissing their ***.

Uh--you were the one who questioned whether or not the Constitution guarantees a woman's right to have an abortion.The answer is 'yes'.The Supreme Court did its job.Maybe you should think about kissing their ***.Mmm, I don't think so. The government can say what it wants but I will never 'okay' evil just because they think it is fine and dandy.