Comments on: Let’s Get A Little Practical: A Woman’s Right To Politics http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/ Sat, 05 Jul 2008 04:08:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: Daniel http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-469195 Sat, 02 Feb 2008 07:17:46 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-469195 I couldn't understand some parts of this article Let’s Get A Little Practical: A Woman’s Right To Politics, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting. I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Let’s Get A Little Practical: A Woman’s Right To Politics, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164825 Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:43:26 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164825 I should have said the 14th amendment does not prevent denying the vote on the account of race. The 15th does. Regardless, my point is that "equal protection" is clearly not the magic bullet since the amendment that spells out equal protection also makes provisions for denying the vote on the basis of race, and specifically precludes women. I should have said the 14th amendment does not prevent denying the vote on the account of race. The 15th does.

Regardless, my point is that “equal protection” is clearly not the magic bullet since the amendment that spells out equal protection also makes provisions for denying the vote on the basis of race, and specifically precludes women.

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164824 Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:41:54 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164824 14th amendment: "... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." You know that part, right? You're saying that the 14th amendment essentially makes it illegal for a state to deny suffrage to women, since it would giving them unequal protection before the law, right? Well, keep reading. Also from the 14th amendment: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state." Clearly, the amendment does not preclude states from denying women the right to vote. It, to my surprise, doesn't even prevent denying blacks (or whites) the right to vote, especially in state elections. 14th amendment: “... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

You know that part, right? You’re saying that the 14th amendment essentially makes it illegal for a state to deny suffrage to women, since it would giving them unequal protection before the law, right? Well, keep reading.

Also from the 14th amendment: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.”

Clearly, the amendment does not preclude states from denying women the right to vote. It, to my surprise, doesn’t even prevent denying blacks (or whites) the right to vote, especially in state elections.

]]> by: Chris Fluharty http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164644 Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:28:12 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164644 GE, I finally see what you are trying to say. And for the most part I agree with you. However as a republic we are still a nation of laws and that should have been the foundation of law not a mob rule which was that thew 19th has become. the Feds threatened the states to get it ratified. This is why I am opposed ti the 19th. The states should have done the right thing. But I agree no person of age should be denied the right to vote. So I still stand by the fact the 19th is redundant and not needed ( but only if the states refused to do what was right) I'm not the one who made the claim that it wasn't as old as it is. The burden of proof is on you. But we really should just leyt it go since this is a political website. GE, I finally see what you are trying to say. And for the most part I agree with you. However as a republic we are still a nation of laws and that should have been the foundation of law not a mob rule which was that thew 19th has become. the Feds threatened the states to get it ratified. This is why I am opposed ti the 19th. The states should have done the right thing. But I agree no person of age should be denied the right to vote. So I still stand by the fact the 19th is redundant and not needed ( but only if the states refused to do what was right)

I’m not the one who made the claim that it wasn’t as old as it is. The burden of proof is on you. But we really should just leyt it go since this is a political website.

]]> by: Trent Hill http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164560 Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:10:43 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164560 Oh,and according to your strict limitations--Im not a christian. I dont believe the world is 6,000 years old. Oh,and according to your strict limitations—Im not a christian.
I dont believe the world is 6,000 years old.

]]> by: Trent Hill http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164559 Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:10:16 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164559 Charles P. Henderson Thomas Aquinas Sir Isaac Newton Michael Guillen Robert Boyle Michael Faraday Gregor Mendel Max Planck Kepler Kelvin Lister Pascal Dr. Martin Luther King You say all these people lived in the 1700's. Wrong. Over half of them did not. You say point to one Christian living TODAY who you would consider smart. Charles P. Henderson and Michael Guillen, two of the first names on my list are alive today. And although you may not agree with their theological views...they're intelligent. I could also point to the JUST recently deceased John Paul II. (BUT HE WAS CATHOLIC,you say?) He knew 24 languages. If you don't think he is intelligent, you are a crock. Ohk. How about: Stansfield Turner - Former CIA Director Alan Shephard (died in 1998) - First American in Space Hugh Ross - Astrophysicist William Stoeger- Another Astrophysicist Lee Strobel Ravi Zacharias Jimmy Akin Gleason Archer Francis J. Beckwith Craig L. Blomberg Edward John Carnell Gordon Clark J.P. Moreland Duane Gish - Scientist/Archaeologist R.C. Sproul - Cosmologist/Ecologist R.L. Wysong - Scientist/Cosmologist Dr. William E. Dembski - Mathematician Dr. Phillip E. Johnson - Former UC Berkeley Law Professor Michael Novak Those people are all alive, or deceased in the last few years. Oh, and have you ever read C.S. Lewis? If you think you're smarter than C.S. Lewis...you're just blowing your own skirt up. And that is just names from some of the books in my room. I could look on the other bookshelf if you want. Charles P. Henderson
Thomas Aquinas
Sir Isaac Newton
Michael Guillen
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
Gregor Mendel
Max Planck
Kepler
Kelvin
Lister
Pascal
Dr. Martin Luther King

You say all these people lived in the 1700’s.
Wrong. Over half of them did not.

You say point to one Christian living TODAY who you would consider smart. Charles P. Henderson and Michael Guillen, two of the first names on my list are alive today. And although you may not agree with their theological views…they’re intelligent.
I could also point to the JUST recently deceased John Paul II. (BUT HE WAS CATHOLIC,you say?) He knew 24 languages. If you don’t think he is intelligent, you are a crock.

Ohk. How about:
Stansfield Turner – Former CIA Director
Alan Shephard (died in 1998) – First American in Space
Hugh Ross – Astrophysicist
William Stoeger- Another Astrophysicist
Lee Strobel
Ravi Zacharias
Jimmy Akin
Gleason Archer
Francis J. Beckwith
Craig L. Blomberg
Edward John Carnell
Gordon Clark
J.P. Moreland
Duane Gish – Scientist/Archaeologist
R.C. Sproul – Cosmologist/Ecologist
R.L. Wysong – Scientist/Cosmologist
Dr. William E. Dembski – Mathematician
Dr. Phillip E. Johnson – Former UC Berkeley Law Professor
Michael Novak

Those people are all alive, or deceased in the last few years.
Oh, and have you ever read C.S. Lewis? If you think you’re smarter than C.S. Lewis…you’re just blowing your own skirt up.

And that is just names from some of the books in my room. I could look on the other bookshelf if you want.

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164367 Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:33:25 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164367 The 19th doesn't make the 10th null and void. I never said that. I'm saying that the 19th restricted the power of the state to deny women the vote on the basis of their gender - a power that was previously reserved to the states. I'm saying that the 10th does not have to be "repealed" in order to be superceded in explicit cases. What gives the Constitution the "right" to do so? Documents don't have rights. But what gives the Constitution the power is the article that outlines an amendment process. NEWSFLASH: The Constitution can be amended. If you want to argue that the world is only 6,000 years old... Move to Iran. They are with you. The 19th doesn’t make the 10th null and void. I never said that. I’m saying that the 19th restricted the power of the state to deny women the vote on the basis of their gender – a power that was previously reserved to the states. I’m saying that the 10th does not have to be “repealed” in order to be superceded in explicit cases. What gives the Constitution the “right” to do so? Documents don’t have rights. But what gives the Constitution the power is the article that outlines an amendment process. NEWSFLASH: The Constitution can be amended.

If you want to argue that the world is only 6,000 years old… Move to Iran. They are with you.

]]> by: Chris Fluharty http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164340 Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:19:03 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164340 GE- More name calling. Are you sure you are not a misguided liberal? also you call me a theocrat. Show me one thing I have said that would suggest that? Back your slander up. in fact I am one of the leading thorns of the side to the theocratic fringe on this site. I believe we must keep Cesar's what is Cesar's and God what is God's. There is no way we can have a republic and a theoarcy. That is a contradiction and if you actually took a class you would know that. So stop pouting and grow up already. If all you can do is name call go do it somewhere else. If you'd like to discuss civilly lets us do that. Are you saying the 19th made the 10 null and void? If so what in the Constitution gave the federal government the right to do so. Please cite article and section. I am not sure where you are getting your information from. BTW i am not angry you won't accept the bible. God is not a puppet master and you are free to choose Hell if you like. I know it is hard for a liberal to grasp such complex ideas. Maybe when you stop being so bigoted you might find a peace in your life. Good Day GE PS please post this so called irrefutable evidence. Because I will be happy to squash it. However I doubt you'll accept it because the Bible is to hard for you to understand. GE- More name calling. Are you sure you are not a misguided liberal?

also you call me a theocrat. Show me one thing I have said that would suggest that? Back your slander up. in fact I am one of the leading thorns of the side to the theocratic fringe on this site. I believe we must keep Cesar’s what is Cesar’s and God what is God’s. There is no way we can have a republic and a theoarcy. That is a contradiction and if you actually took a class you would know that. So stop pouting and grow up already. If all you can do is name call go do it somewhere else. If you’d like to discuss civilly lets us do that.

Are you saying the 19th made the 10 null and void? If so what in the Constitution gave the federal government the right to do so. Please cite article and section. I am not sure where you are getting your information from.

BTW i am not angry you won’t accept the bible. God is not a puppet master and you are free to choose Hell if you like. I know it is hard for a liberal to grasp such complex ideas. Maybe when you stop being so bigoted you might find a peace in your life. Good Day GE

PS please post this so called irrefutable evidence. Because I will be happy to squash it. However I doubt you’ll accept it because the Bible is to hard for you to understand.

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164334 Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:53:07 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164334 Listing names from the 1700s and saying that they "lived under the Bible" is like saying that Aristotle is to be demeaned because he didn't acknowledge that the world was round. Point me to a Christian living today that I wouldn't consider a "degenerate" and then you may have your point. And besides - how many of the greats you listed truly "lived UNDER the Bible" - i.e. believed that the world was 6,000 years old in the face of irrefutable evidence that it was much older, etc.? Listing names from the 1700s and saying that they “lived under the Bible” is like saying that Aristotle is to be demeaned because he didn’t acknowledge that the world was round. Point me to a Christian living today that I wouldn’t consider a “degenerate” and then you may have your point. And besides – how many of the greats you listed truly “lived UNDER the Bible” – i.e. believed that the world was 6,000 years old in the face of irrefutable evidence that it was much older, etc.?

]]> by: Trent Hill http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164326 Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:42:43 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164326 Come on GE. How are these people degenerates? I could add more to the list if you like. Come on GE. How are these people degenerates? I could add more to the list if you like.

]]> by: Trent Hill http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164194 Wed, 18 Apr 2007 06:03:28 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164194 Ya. We are all degenerates. Charles P. Henderson Thomas Aquinas Sir Isaac Newton Michael Guillen Robert Boyle Michael Faraday Gregor Mendel Max Planck Kepler Kelvin Lister Pascal Dr. Martin Luther King Heck, even Albert Einstein believed in God, albiet he never ascribed to a "personal God" which means he was not Christian. Charles Darwin thought that evolution proved God. Lastly, we come to Georges Lamaitre, a Belgian Roman Catholic Priest--and the first person to suggest the Big Bang Theory. Ya. We are all degenerates.

Charles P. Henderson
Thomas Aquinas
Sir Isaac Newton
Michael Guillen
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
Gregor Mendel
Max Planck
Kepler
Kelvin
Lister
Pascal
Dr. Martin Luther King

Heck, even Albert Einstein believed in God, albiet he never ascribed to a “personal God” which means he was not Christian.

Charles Darwin thought that evolution proved God.

Lastly, we come to Georges Lamaitre, a Belgian Roman Catholic Priest—and the first person to suggest the Big Bang Theory.

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164143 Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:41:15 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164143 "way to much"? This is not about semantics. You say that the Constitution cannot supercede the 10th amendment without "repealing it," and I'm pointing out that no amendment has ever been "repealed." They are "repealed" by passing new amendments that supercede them. The 14th, the 16th, the 19th, the 26th, etc. The Bible is trash to me and I'm free not to read it. I know that makes you very angry, being that you are a Nazi theocrat. But what you're not free to do is tell lies about the Constittuion to justify your arguments. We all live under the Constitution. Only degenerates live under your worthless hate text called the Bible. “way to much”?

This is not about semantics. You say that the Constitution cannot supercede the 10th amendment without “repealing it,” and I’m pointing out that no amendment has ever been “repealed.” They are “repealed” by passing new amendments that supercede them. The 14th, the 16th, the 19th, the 26th, etc.

The Bible is trash to me and I’m free not to read it. I know that makes you very angry, being that you are a Nazi theocrat. But what you’re not free to do is tell lies about the Constittuion to justify your arguments. We all live under the Constitution. Only degenerates live under your worthless hate text called the Bible.

]]> by: Chris Fluharty http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164128 Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:22:59 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-164128 GE- Your grade school vocabulary shows your grade school mentality. Good luck living such a sad existence. Try the book you call a fraud. It might cure your sorry attitude. You like semantics way to much. GE- Your grade school vocabulary shows your grade school mentality. Good luck living such a sad existence. Try the book you call a fraud. It might cure your sorry attitude. You like semantics way to much.

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-163884 Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:40:43 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-163884 You are a moron. There is no such thing as "repealing" an amendment. New amendments are passed to supercede old ones. When was prohibition repealed? By ANOTHER amendment. So if an amendment "infringes" on "state's rights" to oppress, then that "power" is no longer "reserved" under the 9th amendment. You are the one who needs to take a civics lesson, idiot. You are a moron. There is no such thing as “repealing” an amendment. New amendments are passed to supercede old ones. When was prohibition repealed? By ANOTHER amendment. So if an amendment “infringes” on “state’s rights” to oppress, then that “power” is no longer “reserved” under the 9th amendment. You are the one who needs to take a civics lesson, idiot.

]]> by: Chris Fluharty http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-163869 Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:31:50 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/04/10/lets-get-a-little-practical-a-womans-right-to-politics/#comment-163869 GE- I am not even fully white. Don't let the last name full you I was adopted, so how dare you accuse me of racism please get a brain! Also my family fought for the Union and they fought to preserve the union not to protect slaves. Your "classic comments" prove your historical ignorance. While you take civics pick up a history class as well. the constitutional amendment process should not usurp powers given to the states. If the power is not delegated then it stays in the states. The 10th amendment was never repealed. like I said please go take a high school civics course you are embarrassing yourself. GE- I am not even fully white. Don’t let the last name full you I was adopted, so how dare you accuse me of racism please get a brain! Also my family fought for the Union and they fought to preserve the union not to protect slaves. Your “classic comments” prove your historical ignorance. While you take civics pick up a history class as well.

the constitutional amendment process should not usurp powers given to the states. If the power is not delegated then it stays in the states. The 10th amendment was never repealed. like I said please go take a high school civics course you are embarrassing yourself.

]]>