Supreme Court strikes down most of the Arizona Immigration law

Hey, WW. How many Tea Partiers have co-sponsored or committed to voting for S. 2175/H.R. 5936? I'd like to know.

https://ssl.capwiz.com/aclu/issues/a...4ndaa_redirect Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

3


what do I win ?

Why do you refuse to answer questions put to you?

I will answer for you:

When push comes to shove, the LP isn't about protecting rights, but protecting choices............the LP doesn't give a damn about individual rights !

Here is your own LP leader saying so..

http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/lp-cha...ividual-choice

Why should I answer your question, when you refuse to answer mine? LOL! I asked first, answer mine, and I will answer yours. It's so simple. Just try it.

Another question for COG: what's the LP position on late term abortions? An awful act of murder that even Ron Paul can't stand.

I can understand why he left the LP.

Ok. You aren't going to answer my question. You want to change the subject. Well have fun playing with yourself.

Whirlaway, you are right Abortion is the epitome of the conflict between individual liberty and individual choice. It is an Achilles heel for liberty minded individuals. It is in my mind the one issue that can not be answered by the liberty minded community. I believe this to be true because there is no correct answer from a liberty standing. Either choice violates the right of a person. This is because pregnancy is the ONLY thing in all of humanity where two peoples rights coexist at the exact same time and the exact same place. I challenge anyone to disprove that. That is why you get an issue like Ron Paul being against Abortion, while the Libertarian Party as a platform is pro choice. This was not what drove Ron Paul away, just a difference of opinion.

The argument for and against this issue can be made from a liberty standpoint and be valid.

In my opinion, questions of liberty all boil down to a simple thing, Your rights end where mine begin or vice versa. Since this issue is the only one where both rights occupy the same space, it can not be solved by logic there-go making it a poor contradiction to the original topic or the second or third involved in this post.

Gary Johnson on abortion. (Even though you refuse to answer my question, i will answer yours. Why? I'm just that kind of guy!

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

• Don't require insurers to provide birth control. (May 2012)
• No federal funding for stem cell research. (Jan 2012)
• Women's right to choose until fetal viability. (Jun 2011)
• Right to choose up until viability of the fetus. (May 2011)
• Leave the decision up to the woman. (Jan 2001)

The decision belongs to the woman up until the fetus is viable. Also, no federal funding for abortions or stem cell research.


I actually disagree with Johnson a little on this one. I'd leave the whole matter up to the states. There is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, but since the SCOTUS has ruled, Johnson's position makes sense. The choice should be up to the woman, her doctor, her God, and those she loves and trusts.



Now, how many Tea Partiers have signed on to repeal the offensive language from the NDAA? Or are you going to continue to dodge the question?

Gary Johnson on abortion. (Even though you refuse to answer my question, i will answer yours. Why? I'm just that kind of guy!

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

• Don't require insurers to provide birth control. (May 2012)
• No federal funding for stem cell research. (Jan 2012)
• Women's right to choose until fetal viability. (Jun 2011)
• Right to choose up until viability of the fetus. (May 2011)
• Leave the decision up to the woman. (Jan 2001)

The decision belongs to the woman up until the fetus is viable. Also, no federal funding for abortions or stem cell research.


I actually disagree with Johnson a little on this one. I'd leave the whole matter up to the states. There is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, but since the SCOTUS has ruled, Johnson's position makes sense. The choice should be up to the woman, her doctor, her God, and those she loves and trusts.



Now, how many Tea Partiers have signed on to repeal the offensive language from the NDAA? Or are you going to continue to dodge the question? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

no more than were elected in Nov 09.

chill

Just want a number, CBJ7. I thought Whirly would know it. He's the Tea Party expert.

COG'S HOT AIR OF NOTHINGNESS OVER NDAA DETENTIONS..

From the respected Heritage Foundation :

After much angst and misinformation centering around the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, the Heritage Foundation has done an extensive analysis and addresses the key concern that U.S.citizens can be indefinitely detained without due process.

The conclusion, according to Charles D. Stimson, a Senior Legal Fellow in the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at Heritage who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs (2006–2007)?

“Those claims are false.”

The report goes on to detail that the NDAA “has not impacted the conditions under which a U.S. citizen may (or may not) be detained and… the Act does not allow for prosecutions of us citizens by military commissions..

THE SKY ISN'T FALLING ...THE SKY ISN'T FALLING....

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...of-us-citizens

Whirlaway, you are right Abortion is the epitome of the conflict between individual liberty and individual choice. It is an Achilles heel for liberty minded individuals. It is in my mind the one issue that can not be answered by the liberty minded community. I believe this to be true because there is no correct answer from a liberty standing. Either choice violates the right of a person. This is because pregnancy is the ONLY thing in all of humanity where two peoples rights coexist at the exact same time and the exact same place. I challenge anyone to disprove that. That is why you get an issue like Ron Paul being against Abortion, while the Libertarian Party as a platform is pro choice. This was not what drove Ron Paul away, just a difference of opinion.

The argument for and against this issue can be made from a liberty standpoint and be valid.

In my opinion, questions of liberty all boil down to a simple thing, Your rights end where mine begin or vice versa. Since this issue is the only one where both rights occupy the same space, it can not be solved by logic there-go making it a poor contradiction to the original topic or the second or third involved in this post. Originally Posted by fetishfreak

It seems to me, that the baby's right to life, trumps the mother's right to privacy. Particularly since, the so called "right to privacy" was invented by the court. For approximately two hundred years no court had ever found a general right to privacy in the Constitution until 1965.

I know it's not the Constitution, but Jefferson said we had a god given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He didn't mention privacy.

The Heritage Foundation is in the bag for the Republicans, who have overwhelmingly supported the NDAA. Read the plain language for yourself. You can expect the Heritage Foundation to be as objective as Moveon.org. The guy is wrong. Worse, he's lying.

You just refuse to answer my question. Hmmm . . . wonder why?

Just want a number, CBJ7. I thought Whirly would know it. He's the Tea Party expert. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

JD is the Tea Nut expert.

It seems to me, that the baby's right to life, trumps the mother's right to privacy. Particularly since, the so called "right to privacy" was invented by the court.

. Originally Posted by joe bloe

It is all a matter of perspective...if you do not know shit about science and think two cells are a baby after one week together , them you will think abortion wrong.

Most folks in the middle of the issue, like myself, think there is a point in which abortion is wrong. Say after the first 10-12 weeks.

The loons on the left that think late term abortion is ok are as nutty as the loons on the right that think the morning after pill is murder.

It seems to me, that the baby's right to life, trumps the mother's right to privacy. Particularly since, the so called "right to privacy" was invented by the court. For approximately two hundred years no court had ever found a general right to privacy in the Constitution until 1965.

I know it's not the Constitution, but Jefferson said we had a god given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He didn't mention privacy. Originally Posted by joe bloe

The Heritage Foundation is in the bag for the Republicans, who have overwhelmingly supported the NDAA. Read the plain language for yourself. You can expect the Heritage Foundation to be as objective as Moveon.org. The guy is wrong. Worse, he's lying.

You just refuse to answer my question. Hmmm . . . wonder why? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The Heritage Foundation is in the bag for the Constitution. Reagan said what do you call someone that agrees with you eighty percent of the time? You call him friend. If the Heritage Foundation defends the Constitution ninety nine percent of the time, they're not the bad guys. It's not fair to equate The Heritage Foundation with Moveon.org.

Bill Buckley used to tell a joke to illustrate the absurdity of equating America's use of military force with the Soviet's use of military force. He said equating the two, was like someone observing a man pushing an old woman into the path of an oncoming bus and another another man pushing the old woman out of the path of the oncoming bus and concluding that they're just a couple of guys that like to push little old ladies around.

The Heritage Foundation stands for freedom. Moveon.org stands for the destruction of the Constitution and in the long run tyranny.

Another one of COG's chicken little rants...........an over-exposed windbag who thinks it's better to be on the sidelines than in the game........

The Heritage Foundation is in the bag for the Republicans, who have overwhelmingly supported the NDAA. Read the plain language for yourself. You can expect the Heritage Foundation to be as objective as Moveon.org. The guy is wrong. Worse, he's lying.

You just refuse to answer my question. Hmmm . . . wonder why? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy