I'm 63 and I'm Tired

ziggy wrote:

What is interesting about you is that when you are backed into a corner you make reference to what the US Constitution does and doesn't do or allow.

Cato, over the years here you have pissed and moaned to no end about the Constitution saying certain things and not saying other things. More recently you said that the Constitution does not make for the kind of government you believe in.

I am not the one threatening to take up arms because I don't get my way. And yet you call me a whimpering leftist? You are whimpering for more radical and more violent political change than I ever did.

What I have said is that the the politicians and activist judges have made a mockery of the US Consititution. I am sick of it. The government we have today is foreign to what the founders produced. I have also said just as the founders have said and acted upon, that I will defend my rights. If that means taking up arms, so be it.

Additionally, I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I am smart enough to read and comprehend what something says, including the US Constitution. I am unwilling to allow some two-bit activist trash judge insult my intelligence by telling it doesn't say what it does say.

Ziggy, you're assuming Jefferson and Franklin and Adams etc would have allowed their rights to be violated by this government, and I disagree. These men also authored and signed a document containing these words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Again, you say all this simply because you do not always get your way. You are but a spolied brat who wants to make his own rules to suit his own agenda.

If not "politicians and activist judges", who do you think the Founders expected would run the government and staff the Courts? The Founders were politicians and activists. Surely they did not expect that only perfect people and non-activists would be interetsed in government service.

If that means taking up arms, so be it.

Randy Weaver and David Koresh and Timothy Mcveigh thought so too.

So how did that turn out for them and their followers and their other victims?

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy, you're assuming Jefferson and Franklin and Adams etc would have allowed their rights to be violated by this government, and I disagree. These men also authored and signed a document containing these words:

True, Stephanie. But they penned another document, too- one which allows, demands actually, a political revolution any time a sufficient mass of the public votes to have one. But the Catos and other wannabe authoritarians over our political and spiritual lives are not content to let the Constitutional processes work. When they don't get their selfish ways they want to change the rules, using the force of their arms to do so. The Founders gave us a better way than armed revolution to change the rules.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson
November 13, 1787

The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

So those who are not well informed, and who misconceive the facts are forerunning death to the public liberty?

The Declaration of Independence and the letters and statements of Jefferson and Paine and Adams and Franklin etc provide context for the Constitution, Ziggy. You choose to ignore the context.

What should Arizona do, now that they are under seige from the scourge of illegal immigration. The people of Arizona have spoken. The Constitution provides rights for individual states and their citizenry. Should they secede? What do you think the consequences of secession would be for the citizens of Arizona? How long should they shoulder the burden of decades of failed enforcement of US immigration law?

ziggy wrote:

The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

So those who are not well informed, and who misconceive the facts are forerunning death to the public liberty?

Any questions you have, you'll have to take up with Mr. Jefferson. It's his quote and at no point did I say I either agree or diasgree with what he is saying.

I just found it interesting that someone of whom you put so much stock in contradicts what you are saying to Cato.

ziggy wrote:

The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

So those who are not well informed, and who misconceive the facts are forerunning death to the public liberty?

Lethargy is the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

Stephanie wrote:You choose to ignore the context.

I for one am not the least bit suprised that Ziggy chooses to ignore something that does not fit his preconceived agenda.

Stephanie wrote:The Declaration of Independence and the letters and statements of Jefferson and Paine and Adams and Franklin etc provide context for the Constitution, Ziggy. You choose to ignore the context.

I do not chose to ignore those contexts- which show, among other things, that the Founders did not agree on what the U.S.A. should be and what its Constitution ought to say. Indeed, before the Constitution was written, some were not even agreed that a Constitutional Republic was the form of government they most favored.

The D of I was not a governing document. It was a call to revolution against the colonial (British) goivernment. And the Constitution specifically disavows armed rebellion against the U.S. of A.

ziggy wrote:I do not chose to ignore those contexts- which show, among other things, that the Founders did not agree on what the U.S.A. should be and what its Constitution ought to say. Indeed, before the Constitution was written, some were not even agreed that a Constitutional Republic was the form of government they most favored.

So what other forms were favored and by whom?

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:The Declaration of Independence and the letters and statements of Jefferson and Paine and Adams and Franklin etc provide context for the Constitution, Ziggy. You choose to ignore the context.

I do not chose to ignore those contexts- which show, among other things, that the Founders did not agree on what the U.S.A. should be and what its Constitution ought to say. Indeed, before the Constitution was written, some were not even agreed that a Constitutional Republic was the form of government they most favored.

The D of I was not a governing document. It was a call to revolution against the colonial (British) goivernment. And the Constitution specifically disavows armed rebellion against the U.S. of A.

Right, but the D of I And the Constitution were authored and signed by the same group of people, Ziggy. You're taking it out of context. States like RI were reluctant to ratify the Constitution specifically because they feared the federal government would one day usurp state sovereignty. Obviously they were correct, look at Arizona.

I'll repeat the question:

What should Arizona do, now that they are under seige from the scourge of illegal immigration. The people of Arizona have spoken. The Constitution provides rights for individual states and their citizenry. Should they secede? What do you think the consequences of secession would be for the citizens of Arizona? How long should they shoulder the burden of decades of failed enforcement of US immigration law?

What should Arizona do, now that they are under seige from the scourge of illegal immigration. The people of Arizona have spoken. The Constitution provides rights for individual states and their citizenry. Should they secede?

If they can do so constitutionally, I think that I could be OK with that.

What do you think the consequences of secession would be for the citizens of Arizona?

If there were a 21st century General Tecumseh Sherman assigned to march from Phoenix to the sea to cut the state in half, the consequences could be pretty severe.

How long should they shoulder the burden of decades of failed enforcement of US immigration law?

I agree that Arizonians have more of a case for secession / rebellion than does Cato.

Cato is mostly pissed that he cannot use the government to promote his religion, and that he cannot discriminate without challenge against homosexuals in providing public accomodations to the general public.

Compared to the real problems associated with illegal immigration suffered my Arizonians, the piss poor excuses Cato's sets forth for his phantom revolution are penny ante .

While I do not agree entirely with Cato on his view of what role government should or should not play, I can honestly say that I have never seen anything he has posted that would lead me to believe he wants to use the full force of the Government to promote his religion and other then trying to antagonize him, I do not know why you would say that.

As for discriminating, first, let me say that I have seen comments from Cato that are out there but saying that, I have never seen anything that would lead me to believe he is looking to discriminate against any group of people with the exception of those refuse to work and that includes homosexuals.

In the ongoing argument regarding renting to homosexuals between he and TC in which you’ve occasionally interjected, it is you and TC who are wrong. So long as Cato or any landlord for that matter does not accept government dollars for rent, they do not have to justify their reasoning for who they do or do not rent to.

So long as Cato or any landlord for that matter does not accept government dollars for rent, they do not have to justify their reasoning for who they do or do not rent to.

I have never seen anything that would lead me to believe he is looking to discriminate against any group of people with the exception of those refuse to work and that includes homosexuals.

His refusal to knowingly rent to a homosexual couple simply because he thinks it would reflect badly upon him may be because of bigotry, or it may be because he's too concerned about what biggots may think of him.

The question that comes to mind is, would he attempt to evict a tenant because he/she moved in a same sex partner.

From what I've seen him say, it's not because he thinks it would look bad on him, it is because of his disapproval of that lifestyle and he has included adulterous couples in not renting to them as well. You may not agree with his convictions but that does not constitute discrimination.

Would he refuse to rent to an unmarried heterosexual couple?

While I do not agree entirely with Cato on his view of what role government should or should not play, I can honestly say that I have never seen anything he has posted that would lead me to believe he wants to use the full force of the Government to promote his religion ....................

Cato's insistance that church and state need not be kept separate from one onother says otherwise. His expressed support for religious prayers sponsored by- sometimes even required by- public school officials says otherwise. His expression that when Courts declare government sponsored religious events unconstitutional- including public school events where prayer is mandated or prescribed- amount to "Judge made law" or "legislating from the bench" says otherwise. His failure to answer my question of a couple days about what religion(s) would it be OK for government to not be separated from says otherwise.

Stephanie wrote:Would he refuse to rent to an unmarried heterosexual couple?

Can't you read? I have said it more than enough times. I will not rent to a homosexual couple, adulterous couple, or unmarried couple. The latter two being hetrosexual.

ziggy wrote:

While I do not agree entirely with Cato on his view of what role government should or should not play, I can honestly say that I have never seen anything he has posted that would lead me to believe he wants to use the full force of the Government to promote his religion ....................

Cato's insistance that church and state need not be kept separate from one onother says otherwise. His expressed support for religious prayers sponsored by- sometimes even required by- public school officials says otherwise. His expression that when Courts declare government sponsored religious events unconstitutional- including public school events where prayer is mandated or prescribed- amount to "Judge made law" or "legislating from the bench" says otherwise. His failure to answer my question of a couple days about what religion(s) would it be OK for government to not be separated from says otherwise.

What does the US Constitution say Ziggy? It says that CONGRESS shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting it's free exercise. That does not seperate church and state. It means that congress cannot establish a state religion, neither can it prohibit the free exercise of religion. Activist judges have distorted the law to mean something it doesn't.

You demand that christainity be kept in the closet and then you support wholeheartedly secular humanism, which is also a religion. You demand the government push secular humanism, on people, whether or not they desire it or wish to participate.

Now, here is what I believe regarding the government's role in religion and religion's role in government. We have the mess we have today because government has its nose in everything. People then wish to use government to get their way at the expense of others. Many religious folks do it as do many athestic leftists like you. Since it has become obvious we can't live and let live, the only real solution is to first get government out of anything and everything that the US Constitution doesn't allow and secondly, since activist judges have damaged the 14th amendment beyond repair, place before the pulbi as regarded int he US Constitution and amendment to annull the 14th amendment. Leave the issue of religion and government to the states and to the people where it actually belongs.

But unless and until the 14th Amendment is repealed, it still stands as a tool that prohibits state and local governments from depriving people of life, liberty, or property without certain due process steps being taken.

Stephanie wrote:Would he refuse to rent to an unmarried heterosexual couple?

Yes, he has said he would.

ziggy wrote:

While I do not agree entirely with Cato on his view of what role government should or should not play, I can honestly say that I have never seen anything he has posted that would lead me to believe he wants to use the full force of the Government to promote his religion ....................

Cato's insistance that church and state need not be kept separate from one onother says otherwise. His expressed support for religious prayers sponsored by- sometimes even required by- public school officials says otherwise. His expression that when Courts declare government sponsored religious events unconstitutional- including public school events where prayer is mandated or prescribed- amount to "Judge made law" or "legislating from the bench" says otherwise. His failure to answer my question of a couple days about what religion(s) would it be OK for government to not be separated from says otherwise.

The problem with your answer is that your view of separation of church and state and what the first amendment states is wrong. School prayer is the perfect example. While a public official cannot mandate prayer, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits students from praying whether it involves a gold star or not. So long as it is not mandated, there is nothing wrong with it yet courts have found otherwise. Cato is right in that those decisions are not in line with the Constitution regardless of what a judge has said.

You demand the government push secular humanism, on people, whether or not they desire it or wish to participate.

I have not made any such demand of government. To the extent that secular humanism comports with natural law and / or the laws of Nature's God) , it would seem fruitless for the government to either promote or prohibit it as a religion. And to the extent that secular humanism does not comport with the natural law and / or the laws of nature's God, it is but one more unprovable theory of supernaturality that government ought not be in the business of either promoting or prohibiting.