Wtf?! I hate Republicans now

Wtf?! I hate Republicans now.

>1 post by this ID

This is actually the most retarded meme ever. YOU DO REALIZE THAT IT MEANS IN THIS FUCKING THREAD. ONE POST IN THIS THREAD YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKING RETARD

A. Fucking. Leaf.

FUCKING XENOPHOBIC BIGOT

Yes, one post in this thread and then nothing. It's drive-by shitposting.

>ONE POST IN THIS THREAD

No shit.

Someone's buthurt

>natural rights

He means the principles on which the constitution was founded?

He can't bump his own thread.

slide threads are a problem here. If the OP does not participate in his own thread, it's more likely that it is a slide thread. Are you saying we should not have a problem with that?

>1 post by this ID
hehehe look how cool I am

You got called out on being retarded, leaf.

Deal with it.

literally nothing wrong with any of that except overturn same sex marriage which will NEVER HAPPEN because it is clearly allowed according to contract law and
>The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

I don't not really I'm just waiting for the shit posters to leave so the actual conversation will start.

I don't know he's kinda stupid a lot of the times.

I don't understand his last point. Our rights are given to us by our creator; they are natural rights.

I wish there was still only one post by your ID, you are an embarrassment to your own country.

B-But I thought this slide shit was a republican funded lie?

Fuck off leaf.

Yeah he's really big into being gay, he's like a fucking vegan about it. He's a nice guy but he contradicts himself a lot of the times.

The left doesn't believe in a creator.

Marriage isn't a contract. It's a religious/social institution founded in the concept of protecting a man and a woman who want to start a family.

>conversion therapy
It's nice to make shit up in place of an argument, but unlike Sex reassignment therapy, it involves giving the child no drug treatments. Also, parents can do this now, so there would be no need for it to be on a platform.

Except it was only like 4 years ago when the supreme court suddenly found, in a 5-4 decision, that this covered gay marriage.

And it was only in the 60's that the court INVENTED a right to marriage

A right that they clearly hypocritically do not equally apply, since incest & polygamy are still illegal

Really almost all the progressive decisions made in the last like 60 years could be overturned, since none them made any sense or had any precedent.

I guess pedophiles could be lumped in there too I never thought of that. I'll bring that up if I see him again.

you don't need a boogeyman to give you rights.
it's not a compelling argument when your opponent doesn't believe in the boogeyman

>Overturn of same sex marriage
A bad judicial decision. It should be a state issue. Notice how Democrats couldn't even get this shit into California. That's because the people don't fucking want it, so tough cookies. Maybe you shouldn't base your win strategy around importing 50 million radical Catholics into your states to vote for you.

>Judges should be advocates for traditional values
As opposed to what, grabbing guns?

>parents should have the right to [X] their [Y] child
If Y is not "kill" "abuse" or "sell into slavery," then they should.

>Religious people should guide lawmaking
You're right, we should rely on YOUR feelings instead, fucking faggot.

The Republican Establishment has problems. I disagree with it on some issues, but anyone making a big deal out of this is a cuck.

Most of the founders believed in Nature's God. Whether he or the left lo kes it or not, that's what the bill of rights was built on.

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.

>importing 50 million radical Catholics into your states to vote for you
Hell, I'm Catholic and I have a huge problem with most of my fellows voting like idiots. And you''re right about the fact importing more Mexicans because Mexicans are generally conservative is a terrible idea. As economic migrants, they don't give a shit about us, and only seek to provide for themselves. They'll vote for whatever party gives them more shit, even if they don't particularly agree with them on other issues.
Also, I'm more about le ebil traditionalist boogeyman. pic related

>Start beating Hillary
>Bernie voters disillusioned
>Come up with a platform of muh religion and muh marriage instead of a decent common sense platform most people can agree with
>Practically force democrats to vote for hillary

dumb normie conservatives can't do anything right

>four stages
>not wanting to live in a collection of microstates.

You should see the Democratic platform.

Platforms are just a way for losers who can't win their ideologies in the ring of the general electorate, so they have to brow-beat a committee of people who are too afraid of their party ripping itself apart to defend its sensible ground.

And, fittingly, they're pieces of paper that don't mean anything whatsoever.

>Most of the founders believed in Nature's God.
False. The vast majority of them were agnostic/atheist and only mentioned god because they knew they had to pander to their retarded population.


“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

“Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792

“We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition… In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

>False. The vast majority of them were agnostic/atheist and only mentioned god because they knew they had to pander to their retarded population.
Hey, look at that, a delusional leaf practicing revisionist history, what do you know.

I usually despise lolbertarians, but I always liked Hoppe. He seemed to be one of the few who could take a realistic approach. I'm just not sure it would turn out okay if we followed his ideas. At this point, I've realized that nothing can make society good again. People are just too self-centered for that. The rise of nationalism in the west will probably make things a little better for some time, but someone else will undoubtedly come along and fuck it all up again in the future. Such is life.

Bernouts are the worst pic related.

Hey you maple sucking moose-nigger, can you please elaborate how even fucking ONE of those statements contradict the belief in a Nature/Creator God as the source of man's rights?

If anything, the reaffirm the position that a God as source of moral/ethical rights (not a pope or priest or book) should be the foundation of a government.

God DAMN you leafs are stupid.

>practicing revisionist history,
im literally quoting the founding fathers

>I'm just not sure it would turn out okay if we followed his ideas.
We would not if Jews/Liberals/colored people are allowed to participate.

Therefore, the logical progression to fascism.

Yeah, we see that. And we see how you misrepresent those quotes to say "LOL SEE GODFAGS MUH FOUNDINGFATHERS DIDN"T BELIEVE IN YOUR MAJIK SKY FAIRY LOLOLOL #DANK #YOLO #FEDORA"

We had a collection of microstates. It was called the USA and a federal government eventually takes power as it always does.

You're not reading the quotes, though. They're the same kind made by Martin Luther. Do you think he's an Atheist now?

I'm willing to bet a shiny penny that he browses/posts on NeoGAF.

>2016
>republicans or alt-right

Based RNC about to make gay sex great again.

>misrepresent
im quite literally just copy pasting what they said

>You're not reading the quotes
except i am

“It is contrary to the principles of reason and justice that any should be compelled to contribute to the maintenance of a church with which their consciences will not permit them to join, and from which they can derive no benefit; for remedy whereof, and that equal liberty as well religious as civil, may be universally extended to all the good people of this commonwealth.”
~Founding Father George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

$0.10 had been deposited to your account

First for FAWK Jeb

I mean our shitrag of a constitution is based on the works of men like Locke who put forth that the only reason that men have inherent rights is because they are endowed upon them by some outside force that is eternal and above man.

There were several founding fathers that also said the USA would not work for any nation that wasn't made up of whites with at the very least Chrristian morality if not Christianity itself. The founders were by and large fedoras.

>equal protection of the laws
But I couldn't marry a guy any more than a gay person could.
Sounds like equality to me.

Yeah, that's what I mean. The state should be supported by an unmoving moral doctrine of some sort, otherwise hyper-individualists will guilt everyone into believing their bullshit. We once had a very limited government, yet liberalism was able to shove itself down our throats regardless. I suppose allowing women to vote was hardly in our best interests, as they consistently vote on silly issues.

it sounds like your 5th stage is just a combination of 2,3 and 4

>libertarian economics because it is the fairest and best a wealth production
>fascism to stand strong against marxists and any other form of subversion or attack, and to implement your policy effectively
>monarchy to ensure stability, benevolent noble rule, and to fight the social degeneration of the people

>says tax money shouldn't be used to prop up the clergy
>therefore he doesn't believe in god or christian morals
okay

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA the little faggots really are butthurt about the west trying to survive the onslaught of marxism.

Sup Forums is my favorite board now.