Tab Content
  • familydog's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:45 PM
    Fun fact: As of 1925, there existed as many as 250,000 KKK members in his home state of Indiana. This sets the record for the greatest concentration of white supremacists in a single state.
    21 replies | 215 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:14 PM
    Is it? I've been given negative rep a few times recently for politely advocating for the Constitution and the founder's vision for the country.
    45 replies | 536 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-20-2019, 06:35 PM
    Were the thousands of white indentured servants in colonial America enslaved because of race as well?
    14 replies | 220 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-20-2019, 09:34 AM
    And he is an imperialist who favors a centralized state. These views are vastly more dangerous than his views on race.
    25 replies | 282 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-20-2019, 08:50 AM
    Nazis are cultural imperialists. The open borders crowd are cultural imperialists. Unfortunately the various American cultures are the ones being wiped out.
    45 replies | 536 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-18-2019, 03:46 AM
    Until the Constitution is amended otherwise, the States retain their sovereignty.
    36 replies | 338 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-17-2019, 08:01 PM
    I see you have no interest in a genuine intellectual discussion. I'll keep that in mind the next time you immaturely snipe at me.
    36 replies | 338 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-17-2019, 08:00 PM
    Jefferson and other radical founders would argue that a revolution would be in order. In fact, Jefferson argued for a perpetual revolution. Personally, I am not as radical as Jefferson, but I see his point. I hate to nitpick, but its not that States would be "allowed," its that they have the sovereignty to make such rules. Is it a dangerous precedent to set? Of course, but that's the system we have. Its also the system Ron Paul fought so hard for.
    36 replies | 338 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-17-2019, 07:56 PM
    What would be an example of a right that every State violated without unconstitutional coercion from the general government? This is a silly question. America was founded on compromise. Americans will find at least one State that offers them most of what they want.
    36 replies | 338 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-17-2019, 07:18 PM
    You are arguing against something I didn't address. You entirely missed my point. Only the general government restricting speech can be seen as un-American. What is American is the States being allowed to manage their own affairs independently from the general government. If the sovereign people of a State want laws restricting speech, then their representatives in the State government execute their wishes. THAT is the essence of America. Your argument is valid. I would generally support free speech at the State level. However, if my State chose to violate my Natural Rights, I am free to move to one that satisfies my needs.
    36 replies | 338 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-17-2019, 06:03 PM
    I disagree. It is only un-American for the general government to restrict free speech. There is nothing in Article 1, Section 10 that prevents an individual State from passing a law restricting speech. States were designed to be relatively free to manage their own affairs without intrusion from the general government.
    36 replies | 338 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-13-2019, 05:39 PM
    Alexander Hamilton wanted an elected king. He argued that people naturally gravitate towards monarchy over time. We might as well do it now and spare us the long, drawn-out process. Hamilton was correct. Americans started their descent towards monarchy in 1861 and it shows no sign of slowing down now. If you are a Trump supporter, you might as well go for it. The next Democrat will probably be successful anyway.
    10 replies | 193 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-08-2019, 07:11 PM
    You do not know what originalism is. Most of their laws is not an answer. Licensing in and of itself is not a violation of your liberties unless you are an anarchist. I assume that you are not.
    140 replies | 3768 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-08-2019, 06:51 PM
    You are correct that Thomas lays out a case, but he is wrong. He is not an originalist. He is in favor of a living constitution that changes with the times. Such as? One man's human right to healthcare is another man's burden to provide it.
    140 replies | 3768 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-08-2019, 04:52 AM
    1) This is not a rebuttal on the merits of my argument. The courts did not apply the Bill of Rights to the states until the 1920s. 1925 with the case Gitlow v. New York, specifically. The courts magically found a new interpretation and rejected over a century of legal jurisprudence. This is a fact. But even then, it wasn't until the 1950s that the courts took this idea and ran with it. 2) Regarding Justice Thomas, he is incorrect. The 1873 Slaughterhouses Cases specifically state that the Privileges or Immunities Clause cannot be used in the idea of incorporation. Justice Thomas is interpreting the clause radically different than the framers of the 14th Amendment had imagined. 3) The Due Process clause was intended as a procedural measure. Currently, the courts apply substantive due process instead. The difference is important and striking. 4) Justice Thomas is not an originalist. He is arguably a textualist. An originalist view of the 14th Amendment would argue the Amendment was illegally ratified and thus void. He would also argue that the Constitution does not apply the Bill of Rights to the states. This is an unlikely scenario. When have all 50 states agreed on anything? If you study the founding, you will see that the north and south were radically different culturally and philosophically. Thus, the only way to establish a country was a voluntary union between the 13 individual and sovereign states. Even then, the Constitution was barely ratified. The system was set up with disagreements between the states in mind. There are now 50 states to choose from. Presumably one of them would be a fit. I would also like to add that one man's rights are another man's shackles.
    140 replies | 3768 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-07-2019, 07:45 PM
    Not according to federalism and the original understanding of the Constitution. I refer you to the Philadelphia ratifying convention and the first Congress who soundly rejected a proposed amendment by James Madison that would apply the Bill of Rights to the states. See also the 1833 Supreme Court case Barron v. Baltimore. I'm afraid you are mistaken. The Constitution was never amended in this way. What you are referring to is the doctrine of incorporation. This is an (incorrect) legal theory posited by the federal courts in the 1920s. The courts cite Section 1 of the 14th Amendment as their justification, but the drafters of the amendment stated that this clause was never meant to incorporate the Bill of Rights. What another state does is none of my concern in a federal republic. I can work to change my state, or I can move to one that is more aligned with my politics. That's what our founders fought for and that is the system that they created.
    140 replies | 3768 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-07-2019, 04:47 AM
    That is not the original understanding of what the union is and how it was to operate. This concept was explicitly rejected at the Philadelphia convention and by the Supreme Court prior to the War of Southern Independence. The Bill of Rights was a check on the powers of the general government. The Constitution would have never been ratified had it been sold like you are suggesting.
    140 replies | 3768 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-06-2019, 03:32 PM
    I wasn't positing one way or the other. However, I could make the case that he has not done more than I in advancing the cause of liberty. Give it a couple of years (if that) and very few people outside of this movement will remember Justin Amash existed. I would never argue that Trump passes the liberty purity test. However, he can't destroy what does not exist. The spirit of '76 died in 1865. He is simply carrying the torch for the status quo. However, I am not so biased that I cannot congratulate him on the few good things he has accomplished. Look, Trump is an imperialist president. There are only a few presidents since the end of the War of Southern Independence that weren't. Trump could be impeached for any number of things. US military action in Yemen is a great start. However, Justin Amash decided it was more important to virtue signal to the left than actually stand up for liberty.
    340 replies | 5992 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-06-2019, 03:29 AM
    I don't, but that's another topic for another day. Amash is a politican. He is not a statesman. He will advocate for the police state if it suits his personal goals. As we see, Amash has given up on improving America. You're right. This is a line-cross that is genuinely unforgivable for someone in Congress.
    340 replies | 5992 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-06-2019, 03:23 AM
    True. Amash's hissy fit boils down to ignorance and misplaced expectations. Ron Paul understood that the Republican Party is (and always was) a party that advocates for nationalized public policy, protectionist trade, foreign intervention and central banking. His goal was to transform it. Amash seems to think that the Republican Party had some vague golden age of free market libertarianism and now that party has left HIM. No. He just failed miserably to obtain what Ron Paul started.
    340 replies | 5992 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-05-2019, 07:34 PM
    The difference between Ron and Amash is that the former is loyal to America's heritage and tries to reinvigorate the principles of the founding generation. That resonates with people. Amash is a generic cosmopolitan libertarian who sees cultures and peoples as interchangeable.
    340 replies | 5992 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    07-05-2019, 06:45 PM
    I think we have found someone whose ego is larger than Trump's. He wanted me to take time out of celebrating America's secession and the spirit of '76 to care about his hissy fit? Screw him.
    305 replies | 5618 view(s)
No More Results

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,838
Posts Per Day
0.65
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 07:49 PM
Join Date
08-22-2007
Referrals
0
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

07-21-2019


07-17-2019


07-16-2019

  • 11:23 AM - Hidden

07-15-2019

  • 07:05 PM - Hidden
  • 03:59 PM - Hidden

07-13-2019


07-08-2019


07-07-2019


07-06-2019



Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast