The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: ABX on February 24, 2014, 07:33:42 pm
-
The internet is full of back and forth political fights and disagreements, but rarely do you see a candidate for national office go so far as to take on his critics personally and even 'out' anonymous screen names as Texas Senate Candidate Dwayne Stovall did.
The controversy actually started last June when, during a bizarre conversation with a couple of his supporters (which included the odd accusations of 'loving horseflesh'), Stovall went into a rant about lawyers in politics including Ted Cruz and Louie Gohmert. During the conversation, Stovall stated he would not 'demonize' them during the campaign, but instead, wait until he was elected then 'go after them with both barrels'.
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1653840_10152199169946609_1485727859_n.jpg)
Fast forward to this weekend when Facebook poster and former Stovall supporter Stace In Texas posted screenshots of the conversation showing, in her opinion, Stovall could not be trusted in his claim to support conservatives like Cruz simply because of his hatred for all lawyers.
Stovall posted what he claimed to be screenshots of the full conversation on his own campaign website although it obviously had some areas cut out of his comments about Gohmert and Cruz.
http://texansforstovall.com/stace.php
As you can see from his images, part of some comments about Cruz and Gohmert appear cut off from the top and the other commenters are responding to those. Stovall appears to be hiding criticism of Cruz and Gohmert in his response.
Responding to critism is one thing, but Stovall has taken it one step further posting several statements on his own Facebook page referencing the conversation with an anonymous poster but going so far a to 'out' her last name that she didn't use on her profile (she has since added it after the 'outing). I've redacted her name if she chooses to not have it public again.
https://www.facebook.com/TexansForStovall
We've discovered that this is the source of Stacy M*****'s assertion that Dwayne is out to get Ted Cruz. Of course, not having any interest in the truth, Al Lee has been posting her baseless assertions everywhere.
My two favorite parts of this conversation: Dwayne says, "I support Cruz." But the best part is where Stace says at the end, "Ok so you're not necessarily lawyer bashing as you are adhering to the Constitution."
Got that?
Okay everyone - go post the hell out of this and stop these two who persist in lying about Dwayne.
And Stace - to save face, you might consider an apology to, oh I don't know, everyone in Texas. Especially those voters who changed their vote based upon your utter misrepresentation of the truth. You have some explaining to do for those people, I suspect.
The bizarre need to respond to an anonymous internet critic, the selective posting of conversation screenshots hiding his criticism on his own website, the outing of an anonymous poster's real name, the calling to 'post the hell' out of it and go after this person makes one question Stovall's fitness for office. Will he spend his Senate career playing Internet trolling games or actually represent Texas in the Senate.
There are other options to Cornyn and Stovall in the Senate race. I would like to suggest giving Steve Stockman your consideration as he is endorsed by many of the top Conservative organizations.
Steve Stockman for US Senate 2014 Conservative rating is exemplary.
2014 Americans for Prosperity - Lifetime Score 90%
2014 Americans for Prosperity - Positions (Jan. 7, 2014) 90%
2014 Americans for Prosperity - Positions (Jan. 7, 2014) 90%
2014 Americans for Prosperity - Lifetime Score 90%
2014 Heritage Action for America - Positions (Jan. 9, 2014) 90%
2014 Heritage Action for America - Positions (Jan. 9, 2014) 90%
2014 Heritage Action for America - Positions (Jan. 9, 2014) 90%
2013 Competitive Enterprise Institute - Workplace Choice (August, 2013) 100%
2013 Eagle Forum - Positions 100%
2013 Eagle Forum - Positions 100%
2013 FreedomWorks - Positions 90%
2013 National Right to Life Committee - Positions (Jan. 14, 2014) 100%
(as of writing this, his vendetta hasn't stopped as he is still spending time going after these few critics of his).
-
Oh boy.
-
Oh boy.
This isn't the only thing too. Apparently he falls under the Libertarian model on Abortion and some other key issues.
...the Constitution of the United States gives the Federal Government no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the issue of abortion.... - Dwayne Stovall
http://twistedconservative.com/why-dwayne-stovall-is-wrong-on-abortion/
-
This isn't the only thing too. Apparently he falls under the Libertarian model on Abortion and some other key issues.
Can't say I disagree with him on the abortion issue, generally speaking.
-
...the Constitution of the United States gives the Federal Government no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the issue of abortion.... - Dwayne Stovall
I'd be interested to know how many people on this site disagree with this statement. I certainly don't.
-
...the Constitution of the United States gives the Federal Government no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the issue of abortion.... - Dwayne Stovall
I'd be interested to know how many people on this site disagree with this statement. I certainly don't.
I do. I believe the fundamental right of existence is supported and protected by the Constitution and can't be passed down as a right that a State takes away. It all comes down to what you believe an unborn baby is. If you believe an unborn baby is a unique individual, defined by its unique DNA, then just like a born individual, a State or any other government can't just take your right of existence away without due process of law. This is clearly defined in the Constitution as a protected right (5th Amendment).
The 10th Amendment of the Constitution does not give States, nor any governmental body the right to supersede your individual rights already guaranteed. At that, most people miss that the 10th Amendment doesn't give the States any rights at all- only powers. (States' Rights is a misnomer, the Constitution doesn't say that).
This is an important and critical distinction because it determines what is the ultimate sovereignty and authority over you. If we cede the sovereignty of our own existence to any governing authority then what is the point of any of our rights. Our right to free speech or religion is only protected from federal intrusion, not State intrusion? Our right to bear arms is only protected from federal intrusion, not State intrusion?
Without that fundamental right to one's own existence, all other rights are meaningless.
-
I do. I believe the fundamental right of existence is supported and protected by the Constitution and can't be passed down as a right that a State takes away. It all comes down to what you believe an unborn baby is. If you believe an unborn baby is a unique individual, defined by its unique DNA, then just like a born individual, a State or any other government can't just take your right of existence away without due process of law. This is clearly defined in the Constitution as a protected right (5th Amendment).
The 10th Amendment of the Constitution does not give States, nor any governmental body the right to supersede your individual rights already guaranteed. At that, most people miss that the 10th Amendment doesn't give the States any rights at all- only powers. (States' Rights is a misnomer, the Constitution doesn't say that).
This is an important and critical distinction because it determines what is the ultimate sovereignty and authority over you. If we cede the sovereignty of our own existence to any governing authority then what is the point of any of our rights. Our right to free speech or religion is only protected from federal intrusion, not State intrusion? Our right to bear arms is only protected from federal intrusion, not State intrusion?
Without that fundamental right to one's own existence, all other rights are meaningless.
Assuming this arguendo, define what "due process" consists of in this instance.
-
Assuming this arguendo, define what "due process" consists of in this instance.
Exactly the purpose as defined in the 5th Amendment- a legal action in which you have done something so egregious as to warrant punishment that could result in your rights being stripped. We have historically and Constitutionally, reserved the power to remove one's life as to the most serious crimes- murder, treason, etc. Other crimes result in punishment that involves stripping of your rights, such as stripping your right of property (through fines), liberty (imprisonment), etc.
We have somehow diminished the value of one's own life to not be a right that can only be removed by a governing authority in the most serious of all cases to a right of convenience that you only keep at the whim of others if you happen to be unborn.
It really does come down to if one considers the unborn baby a unique individual with unique rights. If one only considers it a tissue mass, then what rights does it have? If, however, it is a unique individual with unique rights, then even a State can't just come in and say you don't have the right to exist and someone can take your life because it is inconvenience
What if the State so deemed that only unborn children with desirable traits were deemed worthy to live because it is for the greater good of the population of that State? Does the 10th Amendment grant them that power?
-
My views on the subject of abortion have been previously posted by me on any number of threads. I was primarily interested in what members think. I assume the vast majority here think Roe is bad law. But I was curious as to how many think the fetus is protected or ought to be protected by the constitution. I'd be interested to see what others, beyond O and Abx, think.
-
Exactly the purpose as defined in the 5th Amendment- a legal action in which you have done something so egregious as to warrant punishment that could result in your rights being stripped. We have historically and Constitutionally, reserved the power to remove one's life as to the most serious crimes- murder, treason, etc. Other crimes result in punishment that involves stripping of your rights, such as stripping your right of property (through fines), liberty (imprisonment), etc.
We have somehow diminished the value of one's own life to not be a right that can only be removed by a governing authority in the most serious of all cases to a right of convenience that you only keep at the whim of others if you happen to be unborn.
It really does come down to if one considers the unborn baby a unique individual with unique rights. If one only considers it a tissue mass, then what rights does it have? If, however, it is a unique individual with unique rights, then even a State can't just come in and say you don't have the right to exist and someone can take your life because it is inconvenience
What if the State so deemed that only unborn children with desirable traits were deemed worthy to live because it is for the greater good of the population of that State? Does the 10th Amendment grant them that power?
that's not a workable definition of the process that might be due in this case. for one, it's purely in the abstract and doesn't take any other competing due process rights into account. it also doesn't take into account any analogous situations where some similar due process interest might exist. it also doesn't take into account the fact that the quality and quantity of process due depends very heavily on all of the facts and circumstances.
-
to raise another hypothetical in counterpoint: what sort of process is due to someone who's about to be killed by someone else acting on the belief that they are about to suffer death or serious bodily injury?
Also, to push the issue to a logical stopping point, do you envision any exceptions whatsoever to a ban on abortion?
-
...the Constitution of the United States gives the Federal Government no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the issue of abortion.... - Dwayne Stovall
I'd be interested to know how many people on this site disagree with this statement. I certainly don't.
Nor do I!
-
Nor do I!
I find that interesting. Not sure I'd have predicted it, but now that I think about it, I'm not surprised. I know you have a very developed view of human rights and the constitution, and I think it takes a well-developed view for a conservative to conclude that abortion is none of the Feds' business.
This is not to say that those who support federal laws against abortion are not well-developed, but they are more in line with what most would consider the traditional conservative view.
-
I find that interesting. Not sure I'd have predicted it, but now that I think about it, I'm not surprised. I know you have a very developed view of human rights and the constitution, and I think it takes a well-developed view for a conservative to conclude that abortion is none of the Feds' business.
agreed
-
Funny how I am ultra-curious as to what Sinkspur might have to say about this....oh wait....sorry.
:whistle:
Disclaimer for all the terminally offended in here.....not singling out anybody in particular.
-
I find that interesting. Not sure I'd have predicted it, but now that I think about it, I'm not surprised. I know you have a very developed view of human rights and the constitution, and I think it takes a well-developed view for a conservative to conclude that abortion is none of the Feds' business.
This is not to say that those who support federal laws against abortion are not well-developed, but they are more in line with what most would consider the traditional conservative view.
With me the words "Conservatism" and "Constitutionalism" are interchangeable!
It is abundantly clear that I am in a very small minority there.
-
With me the words "Conservatism" and "Constitutionalism" are interchangeable!
It is abundantly clear that I am in a very small minority there.
I don't thinks so, at least not on this issue.
-
The states can and should prohibit the murder of human beings, regardless of where they currently reside (the womb or elsewhere). It shouldn't be a federal issue.
-
The states can and should prohibit the murder of human beings, regardless of where they currently reside (the womb or elsewhere). It shouldn't be a federal issue.
So there cannot be any exceptions to abortion, whatsoever.
-
With me the words "Conservatism" and "Constitutionalism" are interchangeable!
It is abundantly clear that I am in a very small minority there.
I actually think on this issue you are in the majority and I'm in the minority, at least on this thread. I also believe most of us think the two terms are interchangeable, it is just a matter of what the Constitution means about certain things. I firmly believe that the right to life is a protected, individual right that a State or any centralized body can't over-ride (without due process of law) as defined in the Constitution. Others here believe that it is up to each State to determine the issue of what is life and the protections of life. They also see this as in the Constitution.
I think this is a good conversation for our side to have. In both cases, we are moving to the right in this conversation from the current state of affairs, we are just going down different roads.
-
I actually think on this issue you are in the majority and I'm in the minority, at least on this thread. I also believe most of us think the two terms are interchangeable, it is just a matter of what the Constitution means about certain things. I firmly believe that the right to life is a protected, individual right that a State or any centralized body can't over-ride (without due process of law) as defined in the Constitution. Others here believe that it is up to each State to determine the issue of what is life and the protections of life. They also see this as in the Constitution.
I think this is a good conversation for our side to have. In both cases, we are moving to the right in this conversation from the current state of affairs, we are just going down different roads.
What process is due before someone can kill another person in self-defense?
-
What process is due before someone can kill another person in self-defense?
None, due process is a power of a governmental body. It is a restriction to how much control a government has over an individual. An individual right to self defense is part of the protection of the 2nd Amendment. It is the defense of one's own life, liberty, and property. Due Process is a State function and a limitation of the government. You as an individual have the right to defend your existence if it is threatened. If someone attempts to take your life, they are forfeiting or risking their own right of existence by their own action and choices. They are choosing to take the gamble of trading their existence by attempting to take yours.
(thus, I do believe in abortion exceptions for the protection of the life of the mother).
-
Nope! Self defense is a basic human right that preexisted any form of government.
I agree with that, I probably didn't word it clearly. (probably should have said that was one of the purposes of the 2nd versus protection).
-
None, due process is a power of a governmental body. It is a restriction to how much control a government has over an individual. An individual right to self defense is part of the protection of the 2nd Amendment. It is the defense of one's own life, liberty, and property. Due Process is a State function and a limitation of the government. You as an individual have the right to defend your existence if it is threatened. If someone attempts to take your life, they are forfeiting or risking their own right of existence by their own action and choices. They are choosing to take the gamble of trading their existence by attempting to take yours.
(thus, I do believe in abortion exceptions for the protection of the life of the mother).
Then there cannot be any due process required in the context of an abortion because the situations are analogous in all relevant aspects.
You don't have a fundamental right to defend yourself from another private individual under the Constitution - as you quite rightly put it, the Constitution applies to governments, not to private actors - the second amendment applies to the relationship between individuals and the government, not to the relationship between private individuals. And it is perfectly constitutional for a state to outlaw the use of deadly force in self-defense.
-
Is this thread going to melt into an abortion thread?
.....cause it ain't in the title of the thread. :whistle:
-
I agree with that, I probably didn't word it clearly. (probably should have said that was one of the purposes of the 2nd versus protection).
I decided to take my post down after realizing that was probably what you meant.
-
Is this thread going to melt into an abortion thread?
.....cause it ain't in the title of the thread. :whistle:
Indeed, which is why I won't respond further.
-
* * *
(thus, I do believe in abortion exceptions for the protection of the life of the mother).
Then there really isn't any difference in kind between you and most pro-choice people, just a difference in degree. If the right to life you've found is as absolute as you've posited and brooks no interference, then there cannot be an exception for anything, including that one. Why? Just to start with, what constitutes the sort of threat that would justify an abortion to protect the life of the mother? Would it be only death imminent within the next few minutes, with 100% certainty, or something less?
-
Then there cannot be any due process required in the context of an abortion because the situations are analogous in all relevant aspects.
You don't have a fundamental right to defend yourself from another private individual under the Constitution - as you quite rightly put it, the Constitution applies to governments, not to private actors - the second amendment applies to the relationship between individuals and the government, not to the relationship between private individuals. And it is perfectly constitutional for a state to outlaw the use of deadly force in self-defense.
So are you saying that a State has the authority to allow individual A to take the life of individual B even though the latter is not a direct threat to individual A's life?
What protection does individual B have over the governing authority of the State saying their life is forfeit to individual A simply out of convenience? Is individual B's existence always at the will of the State?
If the State, or any governing authority can determine your life forefeet, then who owns your life?
Why does it then stop at the unborn if we give the State the power over individual life?
-
Then there really isn't any difference in kind between you and most pro-choice people, just a difference in degree. If the right to life you've found is as absolute as you've posited and brooks no interference, then there cannot be an exception for anything, including that one. Why? Just to start with, what constitutes the sort of threat that would justify an abortion to protect the life of the mother? Would it be only death imminent within the next few minutes, with 100% certainty, or something less?
No where did I say 'no exception' or absolute. I did say in my self defense argument it is an individual right. We are getting into the issue though that makes it so difficult for many. I won't say I have the answer to what level of 'threat to the life of the mother' is involved because I frankly, don't know.
-
Is this thread going to melt into an abortion thread?
.....cause it ain't in the title of the thread. :whistle:
Why not, so far it is a healthy debate. Sometimes thread creep isn't that bad. (and frankly, it evolved to something far more interesting that Stovall's 'you like horsemeat' (possibly sexual innuendo) and internet games.)
I don't know about others here, but sometimes it is good to have an intellectual debate that doesn't devolve into a flame war. More classic Firing Line and less Bill Mahar.
-
So are you saying that a State has the authority to allow individual A to take the life of individual B even though the latter is not a direct threat to individual A's life?
What protection does individual B have over the governing authority of the State saying their life is forfeit to individual A simply out of convenience? Is individual B's existence always at the will of the State?
If the State, or any governing authority can determine your life forefeet, then who owns your life?
Why does it then stop at the unborn if we give the State the power over individual life?
You said the state has the authority to allow one person to take the life of another when that person believes the other poses a threat to him - which necessarily includes the case of a person who reasonably, but wrongfully, believes that his life is in danger. You can't have it both ways.
-
You said the state has the authority to allow one person to take the life of another when that person believes the other poses a threat to him - which necessarily includes the case of a person who reasonably, but wrongfully, believes that his life is in danger. You can't have it both ways.
Actually, just the opposite. The right to defend your life is a fundamental right, not something a state 'allows'.
Where we get into the abortion debate, imho, is beyond a conversation of self-defense (as I said in a previous post, this is something I just don't know regarding the level in the life of the mother issue). Very few will argue that most abortions are for protection of the life of the mother (self-defense). A vast majority of those performed are for convenience. This is where I feel a State, nor any governing body, doesn't have the authority to let strip a right of one individual for the convenience of another.
If we weren't talking about the unborn, it wouldn't be so vague. What if one State decided that a toddler who causes the mother so much stress she may develop a heart condition could have his life forfeit to her? What if another State decided an elderly parent's life is forfeit to the children who have to help provide for them because it may create undue stress on them?
What if it wasn't life? What if it was property? What if a State decided your home would be better served to the community to give it to a shopping mall developer.
How much more important is life yet both are (should be) protected from a State (or any governing authority) power.
-
Some years ago, my sister was diagnosed with cervical cancer. She was also five months pregnant. Her doctor suggested an abortion so she could start on treatments before the cancer got further along. She decided to wait and have the baby. She didn't have a doubt in her mind that is what she wanted and would do. Her husband obliged her. After her son was born, she had her surgery and treatment. We didn't know if she would live, but we knew her baby would survive. It wasn't a good time, but I am glad it was her who had to make that call.
-
Some years ago, my sister was diagnosed with cervical cancer. She was also five months pregnant. Her doctor suggested an abortion so she could start on treatments before the cancer got further along. She decided to wait and have the baby. She didn't have a doubt in her mind that is what she wanted and would do. Her husband obliged her. After her son was born, she had her surgery and treatment. We didn't know if she would live, but we knew her baby would survive. It wasn't a good time, but I am glad it was her who had to make that call.
Makes you wonder if the cancer went into remission while she was pregnant.
-
Makes you wonder if the cancer went into remission while she was pregnant.
One never knows about those kinds of things, Gazoo.
-
...the Constitution of the United States gives the Federal Government no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the issue of abortion.... - Dwayne Stovall
I'd be interested to know how many people on this site disagree with this statement. I certainly don't.
I agree with it completely. Abortion should be a state issue, and the only reason it isn't is because of a made up justification in Roe v. Wade.
I felt the same way when DOMA passed, too.
-
Stovall stated he would not 'demonize' them during the campaign, but instead, wait until he was elected then 'go after them with both barrels'.
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1653840_10152199169946609_1485727859_n.jpg)
Stockman is going after Stovall. Thank you Congressman. Keep driving down Stovall's numbers. We gotta get John's number's above 50%.
The Tea Party has to start asking themselves why they can't field a decent candidate.
-
...the Constitution of the United States gives the Federal Government no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the issue of abortion.... - Dwayne Stovall
I'd be interested to know how many people on this site disagree with this statement. I certainly don't.
I don't disagree. Roe v Wade is a federal power grab. The issue belongs at the state level.
While I consider myself pro-life, I am also pro individual sovereignty. In other words, I think if the state "owned" us, much as the monarch owns the serf, it can say to a pregnant female "I forbid you to kill your unborn child, as it's labor will be needed to work in the collective." Well, no. A woman is not owned by the state. It has no right to her or her child's labor.
However, as to my pro-life stance. That comes from my belief in God and that we belong to Him. And that it is religion and the religious community that can change society and the culture that devalues life. So that it's through persuading the individual's conscience that we make abortion unthinkable. Not by government decree – one way or the other.
I think my position is consistent.
-
So that it's through persuading the individual's conscience that we make abortion unthinkable. Not by government decree – one way or the other.
This is the salient point. If abortion were as unthinkable as cannibalism we wouldn't need to pass any laws, and unfortunately, passing laws will not make abortion unthinkable to the people in our culture. It's outside the purview of the law.
-
However, as to my pro-life stance. That comes from my belief in God and that we belong to Him. And that it is religion and the religious community that can change society and the culture that devalues life. So that it's through persuading the individual's conscience that we make abortion unthinkable. Not by government decree – one way or the other.
That is my view, as well. Back when RvW was passed, Dad said nearly the same thing. He also said that abortion will become common since it is now legal, and people will mistakenly believe it is OK. Government over God is never a good thing.
-
I don't disagree. Roe v Wade is a federal power grab. The issue belongs at the state level.
While I consider myself pro-life, I am also pro individual sovereignty. In other words, I think if the state "owned" us, much as the monarch owns the serf, it can say to a pregnant female "I forbid you to kill your unborn child, as it's labor will be needed to work in the collective." Well, no. A woman is not owned by the state. It has no right to her or her child's labor.
However, as to my pro-life stance. That comes from my belief in God and that we belong to Him. And that it is religion and the religious community that can change society and the culture that devalues life. So that it's through persuading the individual's conscience that we make abortion unthinkable. Not by government decree – one way or the other.
I think my position is consistent.
BRAVO!!!
Spot on!
-
I don't disagree. Roe v Wade is a federal power grab. The issue belongs at the state level.
While I consider myself pro-life, I am also pro individual sovereignty. In other words, I think if the state "owned" us, much as the monarch owns the serf, it can say to a pregnant female "I forbid you to kill your unborn child, as it's labor will be needed to work in the collective." Well, no. A woman is not owned by the state. It has no right to her or her child's labor.
However, as to my pro-life stance. That comes from my belief in God and that we belong to Him. And that it is religion and the religious community that can change society and the culture that devalues life. So that it's through persuading the individual's conscience that we make abortion unthinkable. Not by government decree – one way or the other.
I think my position is consistent.
I have mulled over and struggled with this issue in my mind for a lot of years. For some of us, this is just not a yes or no thing. I think your post pretty much reflects my feelings--thanks for posting it.
-
My views on the subject of abortion have been previously posted by me on any number of threads. I was primarily interested in what members think. I assume the vast majority here think Roe is bad law. But I was curious as to how many think the fetus is protected or ought to be protected by the constitution. I'd be interested to see what others, beyond O and Abx, think.
I had not ever contemplated this hypothetical before due to the weak possibility of Roe ever being overturned. But, I believe the authority to protect a fetus is granted under the Fourteenth Amendment--the right to equal protection and substantive due process.
-
I had not ever contemplated this hypothetical before due to the weak possibility of Roe ever being overturned. But, I believe the authority to protect a fetus is granted under the Fourteenth Amendment--the right to equal protection and substantive due process.
Thanks for a concise, on point answer.