And I’m curious to hear how marriage, divorce, and socialism isn’t related to child welfare. I guess children born out of wedlock on welfare are just as likely to succeed than children born in wedlock to taxpayers? Or is this another delusion of yours?

The data that has been published, or rather, the interpretation of the data, has been found suspect. The authors of the studies admitted that they manipulated the data. The authors have never released the original data, and in fact, admitted that they would rather destroy it than release it. They have also never published their methods.

If you think that this debate has anything to do with my views on things, you’re being absurd. The fact of the matter is that I could be a space alien on heroin and the fact that the scientists committed broad violations of the scientific method will not change.

Please, you do not support your arguments by arguing ad hominem. That is called a logical fallacy for a reason.

Be consistent, Jonathan.

There has, to date, never been a debater from that side who did not resort to ad hominem attacks.

Since czars have been appointed for over 60 years, including by Republican presidents, and their powers are more as coordinators than “ministers”, there is nothing particularly illegal about them.

Are you trying to say fascism is OK if a Republican is doing it or it’s been done for a long time? That’s a very strange argument.

Man, I must have missed the teeth-kicking and imprisonment of Fox News reporters by government agents under direct orders from the White House.

So until someone ends up in the hospital, it isn’t oppression. Got it.

Have you heard of Kenneth Gladney? Kelly Owens? (link) Does a woman getting punched in the eye count? (link)

“Hit back twice as hard” — Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Barack Obama.

I’m waiting to see where direct political activity and the donation of money to political campaigns is related to the practice of religion

Gee, you’ve hit on two of the clauses of the First Amendment with that one, two rights that are explicitly protected.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…

separation of church and state

I’ve been looking for this phrase in the constitution. The only thing close I can find is the first amendment, where it says “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Except in this case, the separation is quite clearly one-sided. Congress can’t interfere with religion. It says nothing about religion petitioning congress. Oh wait! It does: “and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The 18th Amendment states that income can be taxed. That’s it. It’s a broad Constitutional power as written.

“but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” — Article 1, Section 8. Unless they’re taxing at a uniform rate, they can’t single out certain kinds of income.

The Commerce Clause has been interpreted to apply to anything which COULD be traded across state lines by the courts. Insurance falls under that category.

But medical care can’t be traded across state lines, unless the doctor was on one side of the border and the patient was on the other. Besides, a new court is in town, one which may limit the scope of the commerce clause. If Obama would like to get a clearer definition on what is and isn’t interstate trade, this would be a good way to petition the court to make it clear. I guarantee your side won’t be happy with the outcome.

To me, you are imposing a draconian social code for “the good of the people”, in exactly the same way that the North Korean government attempts to maintain social order through imprisonment of those that do not conform.

No, I do not believe any such thing. I believe that those laws should be imposed because by not imposing them, our rights are fewer and less protected. Adultery does terrible damage to families and children and wives and husbands. Out of wedlock birth is a wonderful way to ruin a child’s life. This isn’t subjective, this is well-documented fact. Allowing people to do this is like allowing people to burn down other’s houses and wreck each other’s lives. This is clearly not protecting anyone’s rights, but allowing someone else to trample all over the victim’s.

You can’t tell me what my beliefs are, and you can’t try to say that I want a society of law and order for law and order’s sake. I like chaos and I like the disorganization that capitalism brings. I don’t like people trampling on other’s rights.

It’s a discussion of the role of government in providing public goods. This is not relevant to your black-and-white perspective.

On the contrary, this is the whole point. Read the preamble of the constitution carefully: “provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. “Provide” defense. “Promote” general welfare, not provide it. “Secure”, not provide. These are important words, chosen carefully. None of the Founding Fathers wanted government to give the people things. They wanted a government to protect people’s rights to obtain things on their own.

The other way leads, inevitably, to tyranny. That which a government gives, the government controls. Do you really want the state to make decisions about what medical procedures doctors will perform on you? Or would you rather have that be a discussion between you and your doctor, protected by the state but not provided by it.

The rights of children have little to do with the orientation of their parents

Except for the mountain of evidence that children need loving fathers and mothers. Those without one or the other do far worse in our society. (Interestingly enough, widows and widowers do just as well as married couples in raising children.)

If there is a need for adoptive couples, then we need to, as a society, encourage people to become adoptive couples.

Get over yourself. At NO point was the function of any level of government SOLELY to protect rights. The Constitution allows for a federally-run postal service, for example, which was pretty much the only national communications infrastructure of the time. State constitutions were the same: the original Massachusetts constitution makes specific mention of Harvard University, and other state constitutions from the time make specific note of powers that don’t fall under your categorization. Your unsupported hyperbole makes little sense when viewed under the actual record.

You’re kidding yourself here. Read the comments of the people who did these things. Why a postal service? Because the right of free speech and assembly were so important, that the government had to provide the means to accomplish such. (No private entity could have done it at the time and provided such a service for a rate that would make communication possible to the masses.) Same for state-funded institutions of education. These were provided to educate the people so that they could understand and exercise their rights. That was the argument for them. It wasn’t a “gimme gimme” culture. It was a process of, “How can we best secure the blessings of liberty for us and our posterity?”

And the Declaration of Independence is quite clear on what is an is not acceptable forms of government:

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 of 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.