Republican/Conservative hypocricy & the Constitution

Shalamar said:
Pro Life means that sometimes you have to sacrifice the mother, to save the baby..
Click to expand...


Of course it is obvious since the baby is without sin and the mother....well.. she didn't get that way by being chaste!
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Where, in the Constitution, does it say anything about a separation between church and state?
Click to expand...

Maybe not in so many words, but I think that little clause about Congress not establishing a religon sort of conveys the same idea.
IF you want the US to have an official religon..probably headquarted in Salt Lake City..., just be honest about it and say we have to change the Constitution to do so.
 
bynmdsue said:
#1. Thanks, I'm trying.

#2. You can pretend it's not if it helps you sleep but it is.Science and Law says it ain't? Well at times science and law has said the same for Jews and Africans.
Click to expand...

At what exact point, pre birth, does a fetus become a Human Being?
 
Thunder said:
Ok, so we now have a GREAT example of Conservative and GOPer hypocricy when it comes to the Constitution.

Conservatives and GOPers, who usually claim to LOVE the Constitution, Freedom, and the Bill of Rights to death, are now mostly the ones demanding that Mosque/Muslim community center NOT be built near GZ.

They believe that freedom of religion should be suspended in this case, because it effects Muslims.

This is a huge attack upon freedom and the Constitution.

Do we have any other examples of such Conservative/GOPer hypocricy regarding the Bill of Rights?

..this is not a debate about the mosque issue, btw.


-ah yes, there is the abortion issue. The rights of women is superceded by the rights of 2 day old fetuses. that's another.

-and drugs. GOPers/Conservatives abandon their libertarianism when it comes to drugs.

anything else?
Click to expand...

Where is the hypocrisy? What exactly have the Conservative/GOPers done here, other than exercise their constitutional right to free speech?
 
Kegeshook said:
Where is the hypocrisy? What exactly have the Conservative/GOPers done here, other than exercise their constitutional right to free speech?
Click to expand...

claiming to fully support the 1st Amendment and Libertarian principles, while being against a Mosque near GZ, abortion rights, recreational drug use, is indeed highly hypocritical.
 
Thunder said:
claiming to fully support the 1st Amendment and Libertarian principles, while being against a Mosque near GZ, abortion rights, recreational drug use, is indeed highly hypocritical.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry but I still don't see any hypocrisy on any of those. Particularly in relation to a conservative view of the constitution. In posing the question to you, I really just had the mosque issue in mind. Speaking out against the mosque is not being hypocritical. Advocating government action against it would be. I have yet to see any of that.
 
Last edited:
Kegeshook said:
Speaking out against the mosque is not being hypocritical. Advocating government action against it would be. I have yet to see any of that.
Click to expand...

yes, simply asking for the Cordoba folks to move the Mosque, does not contradict the 1st Amendment.

however, one candidate for NY Governor wants to expropriate the land under emminent domain, the other calls the Immam a "terrorist supporter" and wants to investigate him and the mosque, while some folks are arguing that Islam is not a religion, but a political force undeserving of Constititional protections.
 
The left and the right are equally guilty of Humpty-Dumptyism: as in, "The Constitution means exactly what I choose it to mean..."

The opinion that only one party is guilty of this (while the other is innocent) amuses me.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
yeah, we sue gun dealers down South who sell 20 Glocks at a time, to folks who take them to Brooklyn, sell them out of his trunk, which are then used to kill children.

how dare us.

now, how is is that GOPers can claim to support individual rights and freedom, and yet be against abortion rights and recreational drug use?
Click to expand...

I don't see how someone can be in favor of allowing an unborn child to be aborted and claim to be in favor of individual rights. But this is not the thread for that discussion.
 
eeyore1954 said:
I don't see how someone can be in favor of allowing an unborn child to be aborted and claim to be in favor of individual rights. But this is not the thread for that discussion.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's because a fetus is not an individual. Try again.
 
And is abortion the only right a woman has? How exactly is protecting an unborn child's life giving it more rights than the mother?

Screw it, let's go with some liberal hypocrisy:

The Rockefeller Laws are wrong because they are de facto racist in that poor and minorities tend to be the ones sentenced under them. Rich white people aren't your typical crack user (Robert Downey Jr not withstanding) and they certainly aren't getting their fixes out in the streets, where the typical bust is made. (I actually agree with this a little)

However, the gun control laws which keep guns out of the hands of people who can't afford the fees or fail to meet some other restriction (ie poor and minorities) and pretty much guarantee only rich white men can legally own guns aren't racist because... (Granted, I can only speak for NYC's gun control laws). Even though the majority of violent crimes don't happen on the Upper East Side or Tribecca, but rather in places like Bed-Stuy or the South Bronx.
 
Totally off topic, but I doubt "individual" is the best terminology for a pro-life argument.

Individuality is the state or quality of being an individual; a person separate from other persons and possessing his or her own needs, goals, and desires.
Click to expand...
 
* chortle * A thread with a topic that can only be described as inflammatory devolves within 2-3 posts into a guns and abortion shoutfest. Whodda thunk it? Teh gays should be offended at being left out.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Where, in the Constitution, does it say anything about a separation between church and state?
Click to expand...

What? Really? We're still having this conversation?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
It's right there in the first sentence of the First Amendment. Congress cannot make any law effecting religion, for or against. The corollary is that no religion can have any official legal role in the government.

That's where it says anything about a separation between church and state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom