Yes, his grandfather was in Mexico so that he could practice polygamy. But what's worse than that he is the son of a moderate, northern republican who opposed Goldwater, and spoke out openly against the Vietnam War.

So...he wasn't hiring illegal aliens, he was helping out relatives?

/whatthefarkamireading.jpg

I haven't seen the apostrophe used this poorly in an article since I stopped reading the Ron Paul newsletter.

RexTalionis: Waiting for the birthers to jump on this.

Why would they do that!?!?! He's not black!

GAT_00: and so there's Romney's almost everywhere you can imagine

I barfed.

That would be a lot funnier without the 's on that. 'There's Romney almost everywhere you can imagine.' That deserves to be some kind of neologism.

OK, so what the hell is "Romney"?

The frothy mix of lube and commingled lady juice that is sometimes the product of polygamous sex?

Mitt is an anchor baby

WHAR BIRTH CERTIFICATE?!?!?!?!?

Oh wait he's white? No one cares then.

As a Chicano voting for Romney i think this should be his new campaign theme. (new window)

/muy firme vato Romney!

coeyagi: I haven't seen the apostrophe used this poorly in an article since I stopped reading the Ron's Paul's newsletter's.

FTFY

Como se dice "Willard?"

muck4doo: As a Chicano voting for Romney i think this should be his new campaign theme. (new window)

/muy firme vato Romney!

I wonder how his family legally immigrated to Mexico.

Where's the birth certificate, Romney? Oh, that's right, at the hospital in Mexico, the land where you were born.

Brandyelf: The liberals believe our constitution is a flawed document written in a different time for different circumstances by rich old racist white men and no longer applies to today's circumstances.

It was, and it doesn't.

We should have realized this when he threw his sombrero into the ring.

I was expecting some random Castilian ancestor that came over during one of the Mexican revolutions, which would have merited a "meh" at best, but that was actually pretty interesting. Didn't know his father was Mexican by birth.

sprawl15: Brandyelf: The liberals believe our constitution is a flawed document written in a different time for different circumstances by rich old racist white men and no longer applies to today's circumstances.

It was, and it doesn't.

Eh, come on, it was plenty flexible and it's a general enough set of rules and principles that it can be applied to modern life as easily as 1780s life in most ways. And in the ways that it can't be applied or the experimental bits aren't working out, we've got the amendment process and the rest of our laws.

Jim_Callahan: Eh, come on, it was plenty flexible and it's a general enough set of rules and principles that it can be applied to modern life as easily as 1780s life in most ways.

It's noble enough in principle, if not practice. There's a lot of ideas that are still revolutionary and completely misunderstood today (like the way the Constitution acts as a steward of the people's rights, forcing government to respect human decency instead of being the source for rights). But in practice, it's a farking mess.

Jim_Callahan: And in the ways that it can't be applied or the experimental bits aren't working out, we've got the amendment process and the rest of our laws.

The idea of states' rights are a relic that need to be scrapped. With the nationalization (and possibly more importantly, globalization) of human interaction and trade, states' rights provide no refuge from large or intrusive government action. On the contrary, the lack of Constitutional discretion between the right of the States and the right of the individual is one of its greatest flaws; the right of the individual cannot triumph as the basis for rule of law until the States are forced to respect it as the Nation is so required. Until the sovereignty of States is abolished, the populace will remain second class citizens by default.

sprawl15: The idea of states' rights are a relic that need to be scrapped. With the nationalization (and possibly more importantly, globalization) of human interaction and trade, states' rights provide no refuge from large or intrusive government action. On the contrary, the lack of Constitutional discretion between the right of the States and the right of the individual is one of its greatest flaws; the right of the individual cannot triumph as the basis for rule of law until the States are forced to respect it as the Nation is so required. Until the sovereignty of States is abolished, the populace will remain second class citizens by default.

The idea behind states having their own purviews isn't really to shield anyone from government interference, it's to allow for significant social and legal diversity within the country while still keeping us together under some basic laws that we can all agree on and allow free trade between the communities involved. You're the first person I've ever seen advocating actually abolishing statehood, most of the squabbles over states' rights that I've seen are over what falls under that "things that everyone can agree on" category and what doesn't. Most recently, Marijuana decriminalization and how illegal foreign residents should be dealt with.

And individual rights are shielded from state meddling by section 1 of amendment 14... because that problem came up and we fixed it a century and half ago. You seem to be arguing against a historical state of the constitution that's not actually the one that's currently in place.

I've been pointing this out for months.

What's fascinating is that George Romney (Mitt's father) ran for president a couple of times in the 1970s and there was never any issue made of the fact that he wasn't a natural-born US citizen.

Jim_Callahan: The idea behind states having their own purviews isn't really to shield anyone from government interference, it's to allow for significant social and legal diversity within the country while still keeping us together under some basic laws that we can all agree on and allow free trade between the communities involved.

Counties and cities can pass laws on their own without a Constitutional decree that sets city or county rights on even elevation with the innate rights of human beings.

Jim_Callahan: And individual rights are shielded from state meddling by section 1 of amendment 14... because that problem came up and we fixed it a century and half ago.

That only deals with flowdowns, not independent legislation. If the Federal government passes a law saying that no speed limits shall be over 75 mph, states are not allowed to have a speed limit over. But they're allowed to have speed limits under.

Look at the Roe v Wade 'compromise'. The debate was not about individual rights, but about states' rights vs federal authority. Does the Fed have the authority to legislate abortion law, or is that under the purview of the 9th/10th and a state right that cannot be infringed by the Fed? The GOP beats the states' rights drum all the time, that the states should decide if gays can marry, the states should decide on abortion, the states should decide on pot.

By elevating individual rights above states' rights, the question is not what the states should decide for you, but why the fark the states think they have jurisdiction. The states - or the Fed - should not be the ones to decide if gay marriage is legal or illegal. Marriage is an individual right. It's out of their jurisdiction. The only thing that is the concern of the government are practical questions of what constitutes a 'family' for things like taxation and estate issues, and those should flow naturally from the individual's decision.

Jim_Callahan: You're the first person I've ever seen advocating actually abolishing statehood

I'm not advocating abolishing statehood, local politics will always be relevant. I'm advocating abolishing state sovereignty. The rights of the state are not self-evident, nor should the Citizen ever feel required to justify a conflict of individual right with state right.

sprawl15: The rights of the state are not self-evident, nor should the Citizen ever feel required to justify a conflict of individual right with state right.

Um, individual rights are handled by the federal level of government, though. So they do supersede state rights. A good example would be the Civil Rights Act. States can create their own policies that are less restrictive of people's rights (the most common one nowadays being adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes) but they aren't allowed to make any policies which are more restrictive.

Again, this is a fight we've already had, and already resolved. States pushed things like Jim Crow laws that added caveats to rights granted at the federal level, and they got struck down.

Brandyelf: Purpose of FR and why we can never support Mitt Romney
vanity | Oct 15, 2011 | Jim Robinson

Posted on Saturday, October 15, 2011 1:51:20 PM by Jim RobinsonEdited on Saturday, October 15, 2011 1:54:20 PM by Jim Robinson. [history]

Our purpose and goal on FR is to restore, defend, preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity!!

The goal of the domestic enemy (the left), i.e., the statist liberals, Marxists and progressives is just the opposite.

The goal of the establishment RINO is to gain control of political power, but not to otherwise rock the boat. The boat continues taking on water and listing sharper to port every time the left takes over, but the unprincipled RINOs do absolutely nothing to right her when they get a chance. In fact, the RINOs actually tack on plenty of their own unconstitutional baggage when they're in power and so our ship of state today is in pretty bad shape.

RINO Romney is one of the worst. We can thank him for being the chief architect of ObamaCare, which if we cannot get overturned and repealed, will finally accomplish the left's major objective of shredding the final remnants of our tattered constitution and ending our God-given Liberty forever (they think).

The liberals believe our constitution is a flawed document written in a different time for different circumstances by rich old racist white men and no longer applies to today's circumstances. They're now even trying to promote the idea that the constitution was never intended to limit or restrict the powers of government.

Like hell! That was and is its primary intent! And we who have sworn an oath to defend it, will defend it-from all enemies, foreign and domestic!

And that's FR's purpose and reason for being.

Romney may be a Republican, and that's questionable, because he's violated nearly every plank in the Republican party's official pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Family, pro-Constitution, pro-Liberty platform, but he's definitely no conservative. In fact his record is that of a statist liberal progressive. And he's a total fraud to boot, with a nasty habit of lying-about everything. He'll do and say anything if he thinks it will help him get elected. He's a two-bit, unprincipled political whore.

Here's Romney's record on some of our primary issues of concern compared to Obama's:

Issue: Obama Romney
Pro-Abortion check check
Gun-grabber check check
Gay rights check check
Gov forced healthcare check check
Tax payer funded abortion check check
Man-made global warming check check
Liberal judges check check
Liberal appointees check check
Ted Kennedy pal check check
Proven liar check check
Fraud check check
Liberal Progressive check check
Enemy of Reagan/Bush check check
Enemy of the tea party check check
Enemy of Liberty check check
Defender of the Constitution no no
Conservative no no
Works across the aisle no yes
Architect of ObamaCare no yes
Domestic Enemy check check
Useful idiot check check

All of the above plus much more is documented in the RomneyTruth files on FR. Click the RomneyTruthFile keyword at the top of the main page. Also watch the "New Romney Campaign Video" also linked at the top of the main page. Watch it all the way through. I even saw some clips I'd never seen before. Pretty damning stuff for anyone running for president as a Republican.

Let's face it folks, the elite establishment RINO corps hates the tea party, hates conservatives, are afraid and even ashamed to have us identify ourselves as Republicans, feel we are dangerous extremist, racist, bigoted bible thumping, gun-toting, flag-waving neanderthals. The tea party is the best thing to happen for America since 1776 and our tea party candidates are the best thing for the GOP since Ronald Reagan, but what do the elite establishment RINOs do? They declare us the enemy! They went after Sarah Palin and some of our other tea party candidates with bared fangs and talons. Karl Rove and company were and continue to be as nasty and shameless on the attack as the nastiest lying liberal. S ...


Thanks for the laugh! I needed that.

Jim_Callahan: Um, individual rights are handled by the federal level of government, though. So they do supersede state rights. A good example would be the Civil Rights Act. States can create their own policies that are less restrictive of people's rights (the most common one nowadays being adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes) but they aren't allowed to make any policies which are more restrictive.

That's exactly what I'm talking about when I said flowdowns. The CRA is a national act that - through the equal protection of the 14th - applies to states. But without the CRA, states would not be restricted from infringing upon the rights of minorities through binding of the 14th; in this case, it would only be a debate about the 9th/10th to see if the states' rights can supersede the individuals'. The 14th does not cause, nor does it restrict. It extends.

But the only reason the 14th exists at all is because the state is considered on the level with the individual. The 14th would not be necessary were the 10th to provide all non-delegated rights solely to the individual. In this case, there would be no 'state right' to conflict with individual right; the individual right would triumph by default.

Jim_Callahan: States pushed things like Jim Crow laws that added caveats to rights granted at the federal level, and they got struck down.

And states are now pushing bans on gay marriage. Twenty years from now there will be a push to ban some kind of culturally offensive activity. The reason states are able to justify putting a boot on anyone's throat is the loose wording of the 10th. States should not have the authority to do whatever the fark they want until the Fed snatches it away from them.

sprawl15: And states are now pushing bans on gay marriage. Twenty years from now there will be a push to ban some kind of culturally offensive activity. The reason states are able to justify putting a boot on anyone's throat is the loose wording of the 10th. States should not have the authority to do whatever the fark they want until the Fed snatches it away from them.

Yes, but the bans on gay marriage are largely getting struck down at the judicial level. Someone trying to do something and it actually happening for a significant period of time are two different things. If you're just looking at stupid shiat that local forms of government have passed and ignoring the overall response of the system to those things, you're not really considering a picture that includes the workings of the constitution.

Plus, in that context municipalities are way the hell worse than states, you only think that things like gerrymandering and blatant racism are bad at the state level until you've followed politics at the county level in anything short of a metropolitan area. And, in the end, the dumb or blatantly rights-violating shiat gets smacked down by higher levels of government or the court system.

//It's also somewhat arguable whether marriage constitutes a "right" in the sense of something guaranteed under the constitution in the first place. There are all sorts of arbitrary state-by-state restrictions on it, from limitations on how much time you have to spend together to consanguinity restrictions. The constitutional argument that's probably going to push it through is probably a full faith and credit argument rather than a "rights" argument.

Jim_Callahan: Yes, but the bans on gay marriage are largely getting struck down at the judicial level.

When enacting legislation, government should be required to cite the authority from whence the legislation comes from. By making states' rights equal to the individual's rights, infringement of individual rights by states becomes a discussion between equals - as if two people are debating their individual property rights - not a matter of the government justifying its shiat to its superior. The entire framing of the conversation needs to shift.

Jim_Callahan: If you're just looking at stupid shiat that local forms of government have passed and ignoring the overall response of the system to those things, you're not really considering a picture that includes the workings of the constitution.

The problem isn't the result of the 'conversation', so to speak, between the state/local governments and the Fed, but rather that the conversation needs to happen at all. Yeah, it's great that your cousin agrees to clean up the shiat he took on the Thanksgiving turkey, but he shouldn't have been invited to the first place.

Jim_Callahan: It's also somewhat arguable whether marriage constitutes a "right" in the sense of something guaranteed under the constitution in the first place.

9th Amendment. The burden is should be on the government to prove why a right claimed by the individual to prove that something is not a right. In the case of situations like murder, it's pretty clearcut that the government has the authority to infringe upon one person's right to murder another. The question is not how the government should approach making it legal, it's why the fark the government has any say in it at all.

Mitt Romney is an anchor baby.

ginandbacon: The Onion is prophetic: ginandbacon: Brandyelf: they've opted to go all in with a corrupt, lying statist/progressive of their own

Bbbut I thought they loved and wanted to marry states rights? I'm so confused.

He thought the word meant "stats", like numbers. You know how much GOPers hate numbers, they're almost facts.

Oh bless you! The universe is back on track now.

/phew

Statist is a libertarian buzzword for "government control advocate."

/uses it :D