Presedential Election

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1326149765' post='2365922']
And as a plus, Gingrich [is a] good Catholic.
[/quote]

man the bar for that is getting lower every day it seems.

Used to be, if you leave your first wife while she is dying of cancer because "she is not pretty enough or young enough to be the first wife. besides she has cancer"(his words) to marry the woman you were having an extramarital affair with, and then leave that woman to marry another woman you were having an affair with(while calling for clintons head on a platter because he cheated), then you don't get to be taken seriously as the "faithful, family values catholic".

[Sarah147]

You got to give him a break. As far as I recall, he only became a Catholic fairly recently.

Edited January 9, 2012 by JoyfulLife

[Amppax]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1326151118' post='2365937']
man the bar for that is getting lower every day it seems.

Used to be, if you leave your first wife while she is dying of cancer because "she is not pretty enough or young enough to be the first wife. besides she has cancer"(his words) to marry the woman you were having an extramarital affair with, and then leave that woman to marry another woman you were having an affair with(while calling for clintons head on a platter because he cheated), then you don't get to be taken seriously as the "faithful, family values catholic".
[/quote]

I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not Gingrich is a good Catholic (I am in no way qualified to make that judgement, nor would I) but his affairs were a long time ago (10+ years). He became Catholic in 2009. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that his conversion was sincere. That being said, I'm doubt that I'll vote for him, I'm not a big fan of him regardless of his past.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='JoyfulLife' timestamp='1326151636' post='2365943']
You got to give him a break. As far as I recall, he only became a Catholic fairly recently.
[/quote]

I dont see why, politicians are generally judged by their track record, hopefully not by what they say on the podium.

i expect if Newt thought he would get enough votes from the scientologists he would be praising Xenu all day.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='XIX' timestamp='1326146960' post='2365885']
It's a little less dumb if you considering how many contraceptive pills are abortifacient.

[/quote]

regrettable as that fact is, I still think begging the hypothetical question was a bit redic.

Then again I'm operating with the belief that a candidate's knowledge of the constitution is irrelevant because politicians are master manipulators and therefore are not held by the law but earn their power for how they pull the strings and manipulate the pieces involved.

I don't see the need to pretend politicians are interested in upholding the constitution lol.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1326153903' post='2365991']
I dont see why, politicians are generally judged by their track record, hopefully not by what they say on the podium.

i expect if Newt thought he would get enough votes from the scientologists he would be praising Xenu all day.
[/quote]

Agreed.

Here's another radical idea for the American public to take into account, how about we don't care about what their relgious affiliation is. Last time I looked, relgion bears no weight on politicans in D.C., so lets just stop the loyalty to certain individuals just because they are "Catholic" and look at their character, creditentials, and ideas.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1326003758' post='2364885']
disarm him by means of killing him? absolutly not. cause that is what a pre-emptive strike is. striking and killing other before they have the chance to strike at you. its comes back to the old question, if you had a time machine and could go back in time and kill hitler when he was a child , would you do it? you know for a fact that hilter will kill thousands of people, so isn't a pre-emptive strike right then since it would save so many people? and once again it comes down to the catholic teaching on the ends do not justify the means. killing someone or a countryof someone's because you THINK they are going to kill you is immoral plain and simple. can you really argue against that. can you honestly believe that you are justified and in the moral right to kill someone because he MIGHT kill you in the future?
[/quote]

I see no difference between that and a police officer drawing a gun on someone brandishing a deadly weapon and ordering him to drop the weapon, and shooting him/her if he doesn't comply.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1325883286' post='2364095']
If you vote for Newt Gingrich because you think he represents your morals, then i feel really sorry for your morals.
[/quote]

Well, if I'm voting for Gingrich, it would be [i]despite[/i] his personal morals.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1326087890' post='2365542']
there will never be a ban on contraception. I don't like Romney but they were trying to corner him with a really dumb*** question.

Do you believe states should have the right to ban hamburgers?

It's just about that dumb
[/quote]
[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1326096220' post='2365577']
a more pertinent example would be pork chops or shrimp, as those are also mentioned explicitly in the bible.
[/quote]

Don't hold your breath. As of the beginning of the year, be prepared to show a photo ID if you want to buy Drano in Illinois:

[url="http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/01/05/new-law-requires-photo-id-to-buy-drain-cleaner/"]http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/01/05/new-law-requires-photo-id-to-buy-drain-cleaner/[/url]

Even though the intent is to apply it to the industrial strength drain cleaners, I know of one local grocery store that is even requiring it for Drano and Liquid Plumr.

[Socrates]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1326139837' post='2365794']
States, under the formers of this nation, can do whatever they like as long as it is not in direct conflict with the Constitution.

If a state wanted to ban all sales of hamburgers, as well as production of hamburgers. A state in the union could do that. What the citizen has the right to do is leave that state if they don't like it or the people could vote in a new legislative body.[/quote]

Exactly. As codified in the 10th Amendment: [b]"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."[/b]

Of course, plenty of activist judges have tried to dance around this much-ignored amendment by pulling bogus "implied powers" and "implied rights" out of their asses through arcane "interpretations" of other amendments having little to do with what they actually state.

It is not the place of the federal government to determine whether or not state laws are "stupid," but for the people of said state to decide.

But who cares? In these Enlightened times, we now understand the Constitution is a Living, Breathing Document, which means whatever liberal judges want it to mean.


[quote]As an example a state cannot declare a state religion as it is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.[/quote]
Strictly speaking, that isn't true, as the Establishment Clause concerned only laws passed by the U.S. Congress. In the early years, most of the individual states had their own official state church, though eventually, the states ended this practice on their own.



[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1326144600' post='2365863']
Ron Paul suggested a ban on contraceptives would violate the 4th amendment (in its enforcement against use of contraceptives, a violation of the right to privacy) and the interstate commerce clause which is actually intended not to restrict interstate commerce but to enable it. obviously he didn't have much time for a response but I liked the response, even if I think that technically there is a way for a state to constitutionally ban contraceptives... but as Mitt Romney mentioned, it's such an absurd hypothetical because no state is anywhere near thinking about even doing that.
[/quote]
The entire idea of an overarching all-encompassing "right to privacy" in the Constitution is itself a bogus notion cooked up by 20th century activist judges. Mark Levin gave a great talk on this yesterday, chronicaling how Supreme Court justices deliberately step-by-step built up rulings against state laws against contraceptives employing "right to privacy" arguments leading up to Roe .v Wade, which declared this "right to privacy" guaranteed the right to abortion. In the '60s, many states still had anti-contraceptive laws on the books, though they were generally not enforced, and condoms and other contraceptives were easy to obtain. The "right to privacy" argument, applied first to contraceptives, then "begetting and bearing of children" was deliberately developed for the purpose of imposing abortion-on-demand on the states.

Of course, the chance of states passing laws banning contraception today is essentially nil, so it's a red herring argument.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1326153903' post='2365991']
I dont see why, politicians are generally judged by their track record, hopefully not by what they say on the podium, unless you're a liberal.
[/quote]
fxd

[StMichael]

Need to look into that regarding state religion. You might be correct.

Levin is amazing with his Constitutional knowledge. Looking forward to his new book.

Levin, outlines how we got where we got with this idea of "right to privacy" here:

[url="http://old.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200503140754.asp"]http://old.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200503140754.asp[/url]

What is amazing is that activists, bench and organized, have managed to twist and build on their twist.

If I have a right to privacy why can't I speak on my cellphone while driving? Or drink coffee while driving? How can a police officer look into my vehicle without due process?

By stating right to privacy, that means the government is giving us a right which they can't give. And when it comes to happy meals, they take it away.


[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1326247384' post='2366644']
Exactly. As codified in the 10th Amendment: [b]"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."[/b]

Of course, plenty of activist judges have tried to dance around this much-ignored amendment by pulling bogus "implied powers" and "implied rights" out of their asses through arcane "interpretations" of other amendments having little to do with what they actually state.

It is not the place of the federal government to determine whether or not state laws are "stupid," but for the people of said state to decide.

But who cares? In these Enlightened times, we now understand the Constitution is a Living, Breathing Document, which means whatever liberal judges want it to mean.



Strictly speaking, that isn't true, as the Establishment Clause concerned only laws passed by the U.S. Congress. In the early years, most of the individual states had their own official state church, though eventually, the states ended this practice on their own.




The entire idea of an overarching all-encompassing "right to privacy" in the Constitution is itself a bogus notion cooked up by 20th century activist judges. Mark Levin gave a great talk on this yesterday, chronicaling how Supreme Court justices deliberately step-by-step built up rulings against state laws against contraceptives employing "right to privacy" arguments leading up to Roe .v Wade, which declared this "right to privacy" guaranteed the right to abortion. In the '60s, many states still had anti-contraceptive laws on the books, though they were generally not enforced, and condoms and other contraceptives were easy to obtain. The "right to privacy" argument, applied first to contraceptives, then "begetting and bearing of children" was deliberately developed for the purpose of imposing abortion-on-demand on the states.

Of course, the chance of states passing laws banning contraception today is essentially nil, so it's a red herring argument.
[/quote]

[4588686]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1326149765' post='2365922']
I'm a Santorum and Gingrich guy. We absolutely cannot have Romney. He supports legalizing abortion, strict gun laws, and all sorts of crazy ideas that we Catholics cannot support. Also, he wouldn't do as well as Gingrich or Santorum. And as a plus, Gingrich and Santorum are good Catholics. Gingrich was on The World Over with Raymond Arroyo recently, and I wouldn't be surprised if Rick Santorum was on there soon. They both go to Mass weekly, and to throw in more points for Santorum, he goes to a Latin Mass weekly. These are not reasons you vote for a candidate, but these two candidates are amazing on life issues, and they both have great ideas to stimulate the economy. Namely, cut spending and lower taxes, but they go a little deeper than that. Thankfully, wellfare will be cut in half, since a lot of the people on wellfare don't need it and can still work.
[/quote]

Gingrich and Santorum are both charlatans who prey on individuals like yourself who are so pursadable that you think a token attendance of mass is somehow proof of sincerity. Santorum helped his his friend John Ensign get ahead of the media storm when someone tried to reach out to him (Santorum) for help. Thinking that Santorum was sincere about his piety the husband of the woman Ensign was sleeping with reached out to Santorum. Santorum responded by tipping off Ensign so he could get ahead of the negative media coverage. Gingirch is a serial adultery who is currently married to some home-wrecker who sang in the Cathedral choir while she was flooping a married man. That marriage is a union of false piety and hypocrisy.

[url="http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jan/09/husband-cuckolded-ensign-rips-rising-santorum/"]http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jan/09/husband-cuckolded-ensign-rips-rising-santorum/[/url]

Stop being so gullible.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1326247384' post='2366644']
The entire idea of an overarching all-encompassing "right to privacy" in the Constitution is itself a bogus notion cooked up by 20th century activist judges.
[/quote]

False. Maybe you think the idea of a right to privacy is bogus (although I doubt you've read the entirety of the relevant case law) but even if the idea of a right to privacy were baseless, which it isn't, it is still factually false to say the the idea originated with 20th 'activist' judges. The idea clearly goes back to the late 19th century.

[StMichael]

Take a read of this, authored by a Constitutional lawyer.

[url="http://old.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200503140754.asp"]http://old.nationalr...00503140754.asp[/url]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1326291238' post='2366893']
False. Maybe you think the idea of a right to privacy is bogus (although I doubt you've read the entirety of the relevant case law) but even if the idea of a right to privacy were baseless, which it isn't, it is still factually false to say the the idea originated with 20th 'activist' judges. The idea clearly goes back to the late 19th century.
[/quote]