Actually, a ban on polygamy was written into Utah's constitution, and was a requirement for state hood. Polygamy has been against the law in Utah for well over 100 years. While it may have been tolerated by some, it has been illegal.
Republican Debate?
- Thread starter E.M. Silkies
- Start date
- Status
Quote:
I love this , thank you!!!
I love this , thank you!!!
Quote:
...Ron Paul is none of the things you just described. If he doesn't win the presidency, he's not going to run for any Federal office. He's not business as usual. His view is the realistic view - he's been proven right over and over. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney are both business as usual candidates, and all the others don't go far enough. I agree that the system is broken (Dr. Paul won't get elected due to the Republican machine, I'll bet), but I want to give it one more election before I give up all hope. Yes, contrary to what many people think, I still have a tiny little microscopic grain of hope for this country. If he gets elected, obviously that won't make everything perfect, in fact there'll be a lot of temporary pain (it's called an economic correction - it's rather like ripping a band-aid off to disinfect a cut) even if Congress goes along with him, but it WILL show that Americans have finally woken up and have figured out that almost all politicians are what you described in your above post.
...Ron Paul is none of the things you just described. If he doesn't win the presidency, he's not going to run for any Federal office. He's not business as usual. His view is the realistic view - he's been proven right over and over. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney are both business as usual candidates, and all the others don't go far enough. I agree that the system is broken (Dr. Paul won't get elected due to the Republican machine, I'll bet), but I want to give it one more election before I give up all hope. Yes, contrary to what many people think, I still have a tiny little microscopic grain of hope for this country. If he gets elected, obviously that won't make everything perfect, in fact there'll be a lot of temporary pain (it's called an economic correction - it's rather like ripping a band-aid off to disinfect a cut) even if Congress goes along with him, but it WILL show that Americans have finally woken up and have figured out that almost all politicians are what you described in your above post.
Quote:
You left out Dr. Ron Paul - his voting record has been FLAWLESS, and he doesn't make promises that he can't keep. He's the ideal Republican, if their rhetoric is to be believed. The man certainly doesn't talk in circles, and his position is rock-solid.
Like I said before, though, look who is constantly censored by the press (and now Royd, apparently.
I'm joking, BTW.) and not given anywhere near the time given to joke-candidate Romney (the definition of RINO).
Ron Paul is far more a libertarian than a Republican. I agree that most of what he says is sound and would do this country good. If only he had the physical stature of Neal Boortz.
The rub is, true republicans and democrats will not get my vote. The GOP has been invaded by Tea Partiers and Libertarians who can't run as a 3rd party. My quandry is I love the ideals of both but trying to find the match to my ideals and beliefs.
It's rough
Cain - Love His ideas
Romney - Can take the US out of nanny state and move us forward as a republic
Ron Paul - Take us back to the idea of original government with less oversight and of course, less taxes.
You left out Dr. Ron Paul - his voting record has been FLAWLESS, and he doesn't make promises that he can't keep. He's the ideal Republican, if their rhetoric is to be believed. The man certainly doesn't talk in circles, and his position is rock-solid.
Like I said before, though, look who is constantly censored by the press (and now Royd, apparently.
Ron Paul is far more a libertarian than a Republican. I agree that most of what he says is sound and would do this country good. If only he had the physical stature of Neal Boortz.
The rub is, true republicans and democrats will not get my vote. The GOP has been invaded by Tea Partiers and Libertarians who can't run as a 3rd party. My quandry is I love the ideals of both but trying to find the match to my ideals and beliefs.
It's rough
Cain - Love His ideas
Romney - Can take the US out of nanny state and move us forward as a republic
Ron Paul - Take us back to the idea of original government with less oversight and of course, less taxes.
Quote:
Boyd, mind if I have some fun with this?
By the idea of original government, I assume you mean the original constitution. I would not rigorously oppose the idea, but could I suggest three changes.
First, I'd like to keep the first ten amendments, worded the way they currently are so we can keep arguing over what they actually mean. I realize they were included as a result of that nasty word compromise and they should have rigidly stuck to their principles and not included them, but I get a lot of entertainment value out of what different people say they mean. Without the Founding Fathers agreeing to the compromise of including the first ten amendments, the Constitution would not have been ratified, so they had to include it. Does that mean the Founding Fathers meant for the leaders of this country to compromise in governing our country? What a radical idea!!! Anyway, I'd like to keep the first ten.
Also could we give the women the right to vote instead of men and could we allow blacks to own whites this time around, just to see where we wind up.
Boyd, mind if I have some fun with this?
By the idea of original government, I assume you mean the original constitution. I would not rigorously oppose the idea, but could I suggest three changes.
First, I'd like to keep the first ten amendments, worded the way they currently are so we can keep arguing over what they actually mean. I realize they were included as a result of that nasty word compromise and they should have rigidly stuck to their principles and not included them, but I get a lot of entertainment value out of what different people say they mean. Without the Founding Fathers agreeing to the compromise of including the first ten amendments, the Constitution would not have been ratified, so they had to include it. Does that mean the Founding Fathers meant for the leaders of this country to compromise in governing our country? What a radical idea!!! Anyway, I'd like to keep the first ten.
Also could we give the women the right to vote instead of men and could we allow blacks to own whites this time around, just to see where we wind up.
Quote:
Boyd, mind if I have some fun with this?
By the idea of original government, I assume you mean the original constitution. I would not rigorously oppose the idea, but could I suggest three changes.
First, I'd like to keep the first ten amendments, worded the way they currently are so we can keep arguing over what they actually mean. I realize they were included as a result of that nasty word compromise and they should have rigidly stuck to their principles and not included them, but I get a lot of entertainment value out of what different people say they mean. Without the Founding Fathers agreeing to the compromise of including the first ten amendments, the Constitution would not have been ratified, so they had to include it. Does that mean the Founding Fathers meant for the leaders of this country to compromise in governing our country? What a radical idea!!! Anyway, I'd like to keep the first ten.
Also could we give the women the right to vote instead of men and could we allow blacks to own whites this time around, just to see where we wind up.
Slavery was never a long term solution when the constitution was written.. Just saying.
Boyd, mind if I have some fun with this?
By the idea of original government, I assume you mean the original constitution. I would not rigorously oppose the idea, but could I suggest three changes.
First, I'd like to keep the first ten amendments, worded the way they currently are so we can keep arguing over what they actually mean. I realize they were included as a result of that nasty word compromise and they should have rigidly stuck to their principles and not included them, but I get a lot of entertainment value out of what different people say they mean. Without the Founding Fathers agreeing to the compromise of including the first ten amendments, the Constitution would not have been ratified, so they had to include it. Does that mean the Founding Fathers meant for the leaders of this country to compromise in governing our country? What a radical idea!!! Anyway, I'd like to keep the first ten.
Also could we give the women the right to vote instead of men and could we allow blacks to own whites this time around, just to see where we wind up.
Slavery was never a long term solution when the constitution was written.. Just saying.
Quote:
Boyd, mind if I have some fun with this?
By the idea of original government, I assume you mean the original constitution. I would not rigorously oppose the idea, but could I suggest three changes.
First, I'd like to keep the first ten amendments, worded the way they currently are so we can keep arguing over what they actually mean. I realize they were included as a result of that nasty word compromise and they should have rigidly stuck to their principles and not included them, but I get a lot of entertainment value out of what different people say they mean. Without the Founding Fathers agreeing to the compromise of including the first ten amendments, the Constitution would not have been ratified, so they had to include it. Does that mean the Founding Fathers meant for the leaders of this country to compromise in governing our country? What a radical idea!!! Anyway, I'd like to keep the first ten.
Also could we give the women the right to vote instead of men and could we allow blacks to own whites this time around, just to see where we wind up.
Well, now, this does sound like a fun discussion. Hope y'all don't mind me droppin' in. Myself being a white male Christian Southerner and all, maybe my thoughts don't count, but here goes.
The first ten amendments weren't a compromise, they were written to clarify and protect rights. Compromise involves partially abandoning your principles, whereas the Bill of Rights was simply a clarification of the Founders' principles. And the wording is very, very clear in all of them - only wilful ignorance allows people to misinterperet them.
As for that last part - why must things like this always get brought up when the discussion has nothing to do with them? Boyd was clearly talking about governing principles, not specific morally questionable laws.
It seems like any time someone brings up the Constitution, some person has to go "OMG they mistreated women and minorities!" This, despite the fact that generally speaking, the person is NOT suggesting repealing all but the first ten amendments - though there are a few amendments I would like to see gone, 14th, 16th, and 17th specifically. Anyway, the later amendments (that nobody is suggesting repealing) corrected the mistreatment problem, thereby making any attempt to associate small government with racism/sexism TOTALLY invalid.
Boyd, mind if I have some fun with this?
By the idea of original government, I assume you mean the original constitution. I would not rigorously oppose the idea, but could I suggest three changes.
First, I'd like to keep the first ten amendments, worded the way they currently are so we can keep arguing over what they actually mean. I realize they were included as a result of that nasty word compromise and they should have rigidly stuck to their principles and not included them, but I get a lot of entertainment value out of what different people say they mean. Without the Founding Fathers agreeing to the compromise of including the first ten amendments, the Constitution would not have been ratified, so they had to include it. Does that mean the Founding Fathers meant for the leaders of this country to compromise in governing our country? What a radical idea!!! Anyway, I'd like to keep the first ten.
Also could we give the women the right to vote instead of men and could we allow blacks to own whites this time around, just to see where we wind up.
Well, now, this does sound like a fun discussion. Hope y'all don't mind me droppin' in. Myself being a white male Christian Southerner and all, maybe my thoughts don't count, but here goes.
The first ten amendments weren't a compromise, they were written to clarify and protect rights. Compromise involves partially abandoning your principles, whereas the Bill of Rights was simply a clarification of the Founders' principles. And the wording is very, very clear in all of them - only wilful ignorance allows people to misinterperet them.
As for that last part - why must things like this always get brought up when the discussion has nothing to do with them? Boyd was clearly talking about governing principles, not specific morally questionable laws.
It seems like any time someone brings up the Constitution, some person has to go "OMG they mistreated women and minorities!" This, despite the fact that generally speaking, the person is NOT suggesting repealing all but the first ten amendments - though there are a few amendments I would like to see gone, 14th, 16th, and 17th specifically. Anyway, the later amendments (that nobody is suggesting repealing) corrected the mistreatment problem, thereby making any attempt to associate small government with racism/sexism TOTALLY invalid.
The only republican I could see myself trusting is Steven Colbert. How's he doing in the polls?
A good history account of Utah's statehood saga. I did learn that oddly enough that Republicans considered slavery and polygamy the same at the time Utah was trying to get statehood.
mom'sfolly :
Actually, a ban on polygamy was written into Utah's constitution, and was a requirement for state hood. Polygamy has been against the law in Utah for well over 100 years. While it may have been tolerated by some, it has been illegal.
http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_ch...ssive_era/struggleforstatehoodchronology.html
Actually, a ban on polygamy was written into Utah's constitution, and was a requirement for state hood. Polygamy has been against the law in Utah for well over 100 years. While it may have been tolerated by some, it has been illegal.
http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_ch...ssive_era/struggleforstatehoodchronology.html
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
Incubator off for 6-9 hours, will the eggs be ok? They’ve been incubating for a month at least- Started by Goose08
- Replies: 0
-
Has anyone used this product before?
- Started by Chick14
- Replies: 1
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
Heater or heat panel -10
- Started by IowaCHKN
- Replies: 163
-
Introducing TUDYBOOK - The Tudy Coloring Book Generator- Started by Nifty-Chicken
- Replies: 67
-
Open Contest TudyBook Holiday Dreams, a Text-to-Image Contest
- Started by Debbie292d
- Replies: 45
-
Question of the Day - Sunday, December 21st, 2025- Started by casportpony
- Replies: 44
-
-
