|
Actually, it's "Godwin's Law", not "Goodwin" |
|
The "Obscure passage in Romans" is talking about consequences for sin in this life, even when eternal consequences have been removed.
The sermon on the mount talks a lot about (among other things) getting your own house in order rather than hypocriticly enforcing the law upon others.
Sounds like basic liberal talking points. "Leave me alone, your rules are fine for YOU" and personal responsibility is something to be "assisted" away rather than accepted.
That's why you have to study the whole book. |
|
|
I thought people could tranfer property with a will or a private contract. As for hospital visitation, couldn't the patient just specify who they want to visit them? Doesn't seem like we need a law for that. I don't really care about civil union and I am as conservative as can be. Just dont call it marriage. As for quoting scripture, Obama comes from a long line of Liberal Bible interpreters who will pick and choose scriptures to back themselves up and ignore the scriptures that condemn their sin. We have all fallen short of perfection, but there is nothing in the Bible, especially Romans, that is obscure. |
|
|
I thought people could tranfer property with a will or a private contract. As for hospital visitation, couldn't the patient just specify who they want to visit them? Doesn't seem like we need a law for that. I don't really care about civil union and I am as conservative as can be. Just dont call it marriage. As for quoting scripture, Obama comes from a long line of Liberal Bible interpreters who will pick and choose scriptures to back themselves up and ignore the scriptures that condemn their sin. We have all fallen short of perfection, but there is nothing in the Bible, especially Romans, that is obscure. |
|
|
I think that what BO is talking about is the tax-free rollover of assets from one spouse to another on the death of the first spouse and the usual practice of only letting spouses and next of kin visit you unless otherwise instructed - for instance in a car accident where the injured is unable to communicate who they wish to have visit them. |
|
...you are one of the chimps who has championed Babakazama, all the while not knowing, not learning, not forgetting what Babakazama would actually do with the power of the Executive.
So, idiot liberals can endlessly weave into the words of Babakazama aqny meaning they wish, just as Babakazama can cite scripture and make himself sound, in his artfully vapid way "Christian." |
|
|
are just 'suggestions' and not 'commandments'. |
|
"Godwin's Law" doesn't "warn against" anything. (How could a warning be a "law?") It states that as an internet discussion gets longer, the probability of somebody being called a "Nazi" approaches 100%. Suggest you read your own links next time, Hugh.
"Many conservatives support similar laws provided they originate with legislatures, and are not decreed by courts."
Er, yeah. You mean like the conservatives in Virginia who passed legislation specifically forbidding gay couples from entering into any contracts or legal agreements that duplicate the benefits of marriage? Those conservatives? |
|
|
Obama is making this one up out of thin air. Its not a matter of interpretation, its "insertation". I think he is using the Sermon on the Mount from the book of Additions, not Matthew. You can interpret it lots of different ways, but the Sermon was about raising the bar (don't look lustily at women, don't get angry). It does not excuse sin in the least. We are commanded not to judge others, but that doesn't mean that we need to endorse and sanction immoral behavior. I hope someone follows up with him on this - we need chapter and verse! |
|
"Beware of false prophets who come diguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves.'Matt 7:15
If one twists or maligns the Word of God you know they are a false teacher or prophet. Obama is associated with Bill Ayers, a Weatherman and confessed to bombing numerous government buildings. Rezco, on trial for federal crimes,and Louis Farrakan,"the white man is the devil," anti-Semite.
You are known by the company you keep.
|
|
|
Oh you mean Conservatives in Va. trying to act in a democratic way and pass laws endorsed by the people instead of ruled over by unelected judges?Democratic behavior,passing laws by majority and for the people, yeah just reprehensible. So much better to let the Judges rule by fiat and decree! Now there's some un-DEMOCRAT principles for ya. |
|
|
Where is the ACLU..... LOL |
|
I knew you would come through for me! All we need is to be protected from ourselves,because "this right-wing brainwashing must be reigned in for the GOOD of the nation." Briggsy 02/14/08
Not the Jihadists, not the Communists, just the one degree temperature change (which was erased this year) and OURSELVES!
So glad WE HAVE YOU!!! |
|
"Seehawk, in fairness to judges,
they must step in when the legislature enacts laws which perpetuate the ignorance and prejudices of the electorate."
That is, of course, one of the bedrock differences that devides the electorate.
We have a substantial percentage of citizens who see no reason to prefer the ignorance and prejudices of judges to the ignorance and prejudices of the electorate. They prefer their judges to try their best in good faith to act as referees, not as players.
But I'm sure you already knew that.
|
|
Folks on the radio were attributing talk of Romans 1 to Obama. Did he ever mention the first chapter of Romans in relation to this latest kerfuffle?
|
|
|
Who have expertise in diseases and the human body. Briggsy, what qualifies judges as experts "in the ignorance and prejudices of the electorate?" How do you know judges aren't ignorant and prejudiced? Do you have any objective standard for judging a piece of legislation as based on ignorance and prejudice, or is it just your own personal opinion? If a judge has the right to impose gay marriage on an unwilling electorate, that same judge also has the power to toss out civil unions approved by the voters. Which is "ignorance and prejudice" and by whose definition? |
|
Why Briggsy's definitions, of course...the one who said this "this rightwing brainwashing must be reigned in for the good of the nation." 02/14/08
See how simple and reasonable it is? Judges, the fairness, the subjective decisions........
It's all for our own good;-)
don't you SEE??? |
|
|
is a muslim, but what i do know, is that he is not a Christian, as defined by that "obscure" book called Romans, this man has had NO, Romans 10, experience, unless or until, that happens, he could just as well call himself a kangaroo, and be equally, correct. |
|
|
When I see leftists quoting Scripture, I see another socialist pacifist agenda sprouting once again. As to Courts deciding when legislatures do nothing about a subject, how will people think when the wondrous Ca. Supreme Court decides what real marriage is about. I see the crowds in LA and SF standing and preening , just salivating if the Court decides to redo the meaning of traditional marriage so the gays can crow that they have again helped take a slice out of our culture. Obama has made some minor gaffes and now has stepped in it telling evangelicals that he is just like them but.....then he sounds like Tony Campolo or Jim Wallis or worse, his own minister Wright! |
|
Bugsy's supposition that people having homosexual anal and oral sex is equated with civil rights reminds me of a joke...but I will be polite!
Dang government schools;-( |
|
|
maybe in your imagination, and when did a liberal Fascist, ever, worry about harming the Nation? If you truly did worry about her, you wouldn't be a liberal Fascist. How's that? Both sentences and done with much glee and animus. |
|
Briggsy is right to a point. A legitimate part of the role of judges is to enforce the constitutions they operate under (state or federal). If laws are passed that run contrary to that, they should be overturned, even if they are popular. We just have to hope that they are interpreting the constitutions as written, not adding meaning or clauses that are not there.
The problem is that courts have been really stretching to find justification to overturn laws and that they make up policies on their own that should be in the hands of legislatures (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) |
|
I don't see the connection between Godwin's Law and Obama cherry-picking Scripture. The former indicates a discussion has overheated and is over, and the latter is an attempt to thwart any discussion at all. Obama has proved himself to be a little on the arrogant side and this comment is just another example. You can't dismiss the definition of man's failings and evil in the first chapter of one of the more complex books in the New Testament simply because it refers to homosexuality in amongst other problems man has in the eyes of his Maker. Paul "litigates" as a prosecutor against a whole litany of human sin which God detests in Romans 1.
Obama appears to be cherry picking the usual "don't judge" reference from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, liberals normally use to try shutting down discussion of right and wrong. What Obama ignores in the "obscure" Book of Romans, is Paul says the same thing in the beginning of Chapter 2 because in doing so "you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." The reason he said this is because Jesus was telling us we aren't qualified to judge the sins of others. Those sins will be judged, regardless of Obama's "sermon," but it won't be any of us sitting behind the bench. It's our job as Christians to make sure people understand what the Bible says and then pray people will accept the Salvation offered - freely offered - that Paul preaches upon. God won't interfere with our free will as He wants a free People who have freely chosen Him and not mind-numbed robots. Whether that happens is up to the you. As Paul points out in Romans, there are consequences beyond Man's control for choosing poorly in the face of the available evidence. |
|
When the Constitution, statutes, and established common law are silent or unclear on an issue, the judiciary should ABSTAIN and allow the PEOPLE, through their duly elected representatives, to make the decision.
Unfortunately, our elected representatives REFUSE to face many of these issues and prefer to "pass the buck" to the courts.
If Americans held their elected officials to a higher standard, the courts would not need to get involved.
I've always found it amazing that the same political party which extols the virtues of "pure" democracy (as opposed to representative democracy), is so willing to minimize the "voice of the common man" by favoring the decisions of an elite judiciary. It just goes to show Democrats truly are not committed to democratic principles. |
|
Brown: Good call ending government sponsored segregated schools.
Loving: Don't know that one
Griswold: Activist court, however much sense it makes to allow married couples to make decisions about their private lives, it should not have been a Constitutional case for the Supremes. Same issue with Laurence v. Texas. They wandered from the text of the Constitution and into the "penumbras". |
|
|
Griswold v. Connecticut was a horrible decision handed down by the uber-liberal Supreme Court. The case is not based on any constitutional text. There is no guarantee to privacy mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The court had to create the right to privacy out of thin air by claiming that it right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections. This abominable decision opened the door to equally horrible decisions like Roe v. Wade that are also not based on the Constitution. Activist judges at their best. |
|
he needs to stop citing scriptures, stop reading other people's writing....
BTW guys I found some brilliant/awesome analysis on Obama’s Fundraising and other current happenings on the campaign. I haven’t seen anything like this mentioned anywhere in the MSM.
Check out the article “Follow the Money” on http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165, “Bush’s Twin and the G.O.P.” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=172 and “Barack Obama’s Apotasy” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=101
Check their “Political Analysis” and "Humor" sections for other striking perspectives and comedic analysis on both parties.
|
|
Then how can the Democratic party possibly claim to favor pure democracy (where every citizen votes) over representative democracy (where elected reps vote)? Or have the Democrats completely abandoned that ideal? The further you get away from the people making decisions, the less democratic (and I would argue, less "just") the results. Why have elected representatives if the judiciary is more qualified to make "just" decisions for the people?
My point here is that modern-day Democrats truly ARE NOT committed to democracy. In fact, most modern liberal policies actually take power away from the individual in favor of the "wiser", more "just", and more "qualified" nanny-state.
After all, the "Village" is much more capable of raising peasant children than the peasants themselves. Right? |
|
....to refer to religion at all in this context. Separation of church and state applies to liberals just as much as conservatives.
The question of gay marriage is not an issue for the federal government, and for this reason I oppose the Defense of Marriage Act. Each state has the right to define marriage as it sees fit.
My own view is that I oppose gay marriage but strongly support civil unions. However, the federal government should not be imposing this on the states.
|
|
As noted above I oppose federal involvement in the gay marriage issue. However, you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the American system of government. We are NOT a pure democracy, we are a democratic republic, with three coequal branches of government. The role of the judiciary it to defend the Constitution against the tyrrany of the majority. That is to say, the people have no right to impose, through majority will a violation of the Constitution on a minority.
For example: The people cannot democratically decide that discrimination against blacks is okay; or that a person can be denied life, liberty or property without due process; or that police can invade your home without probable cause; and so on.
The Democratic Party does not favor "pure democracy", because to do so would be to favor wholesale constitutional violations. That's the beauty of the system our Founding Fathers created. |
|
I did not say America is a pure democracy. Go back and read my post. I KNOW we are a representational democracy. Give me a little credit here!
I was attempting to point out that, traditionally, the Democratic Party has favored "pure democracy" over "representative democracy" (aka "republican democracy"). And vice versa for the Republican Party. Hence the names of our respective parties.
However, Democrats have gradually abandoned "pure democracy" as their ideal form of governmenmt, and have adopted a more liberal/socialistic/progressive view of government. The current Democratic view of the judiciary is evidence of that change (i.e., gov't knows best). |
|
|
To me the Liberal position of passing on assets and having hospital visitations for homosexual couples is just code words for wanting the privileges of marriage without the traditional heterosexual pairing. It really doesn't amount to much more than the constant attack on the values of Western Civilization. Liberals love all their special interest groups to participate in this destruction. Liberals have also made a conscious decision to use the trappings of organized religion, including quoting scripture, to further their radical leftist causes. Once again, BO really says nothing but is now camoflauging it in Bible verses. Please! I once called BO an empty suit. I have now revised that to a DANGEROUS suit! |
|
"Separation of church and state applies to liberals just as much as conservatives."
What in the hell does separation of Church & State have to do with this? Where is Obama saying that the US govt should make Catholicism or Lutheranism or Mormonism for that matter the official church of the United States?
Get your head out of your bum! |
|
I am just amazed that he has actually read Romans.
His argument is troubling though as he gets to pick and choose which Scripture verse he likes best. |
|
|
I don't believe Saint Obama has actually read Romans. It is not a book for kids. It's pure red meat and the fact he airly brushed it aside, as if he's sitting on Mt. Olympus, as "obscure" in favor of a typical Bible soundbite misinterpretation used by liberals worldwide tells me alot about his Biblical knowledge. He shouldn't quote Scripture is the bottom line. His arrogance as well as ignorance shines right through when he does. |
|
I don't like it when politicians cite scripture as a basis for determining what legal rights should be afforded to gays or anyone else. I don't like it when the right does it and I don't like it when the left does it.
Separation of church and state means far more than not designating an "official" religion. Laws adopted with a religious purpose are unconstitutional under the "Lemon" test. This would be as true of a law banning gay marriage or one endorsing it, provided religion were the motivating factor. Otherwise we devolve into theological camps over such issues. Better simply to leave it to the states. |
|
"Listen geniuses, the only standard is
does the law expand and defend rights and protections or does it shrink, attack and destroy them?"
The problem, Briggsy, is that the two prongs of this standard are at odds. Rights restrict the government's power, including, potentially, its power to protect its citizens. We enshrine certain rights because we have learned by sad experience that some powers are themselves dangerous to the citizens.
But it's always a balancing act, a tradeoff, at the margins. Hence expanding both rights and protections at the same time is a very unlikely outcome of any particular court decision. One will usually be expanded at the expense of the other.
The view of a lot of the electorate is that it is the electorate, not judges, who should do the preponderance of the expanding and shrinking. Are judges an important check? Yes -- but their legitimacy in doing so depends on adhering to the Constitution in as much good faith as they can. After all, the courts are a creature of the Constitution to begin with. And the Constitution derives its legitimacy from the consent of the people. "Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith?"
|
|
...bilge rats are now exhibiting their vast knowledge of all things Bible...
What a joke.... If I were a lib, I'd stay as far away from this subject as I could get.. Most of you haven't even SEEN a Bible in months if not years.
For lefties to discuss the Bible at all is about as ridiculous as me relating my vast knowledge of astro-physics.
Obama can get away with this because his supporters are not likely to know enough to know how ridiculous his exposition is. They just look up from signing their welfare checks and say," Huh? Oh...yeah, ok" and then go back to their crack pipes. That's why he can take a verse here and a verse there and make it say what he wants.... The gays have been doing that to Romans 1 for years....trying to tell us that is doesn;t say what it says....
Bull. Read it. It says it. Sermon on the Mount never mentions anything of the sort.....
What a crock. |
|
I agree with most everything you wrote. Romans is my favorite book not only in Scripture but period. Everytime I read it I learn something new.
But I was amazed that he was smart enough to reference Romans. Yet I agree with your later conclusion. |
|
"I don't like it when politicians cite scripture as a basis for determining what legal rights should be afforded to gays or anyone else. I don't like it when the right does it and I don't like it when the left does it."
Who gives a crap what you like. I like it. So what.
However, you made a constitutional argument that is blatantly false.
"Separation of church and state means far more than not designating an "official" religion."
No it doesn't - read the Free Exercise clause.
"Laws adopted with a religious purpose are unconstitutional under the "Lemon" test. This would be as true of a law banning gay marriage or one endorsing it, provided religion were the motivating factor. Otherwise we devolve into theological camps over such issues. Better simply to leave it to the states."
Nope - again you are wrong. Laws that promote the hiring of chaplains in federal prisons or for the military are clearly constitutional.
If you don't like the constitution you are free to pass a constitutional amendment. Until then you must abide by the rule of law. Anything less is fascism.
|
|
|
If you are on your Concerta now, perhaps read Romans 2 and learn Paul repeated Jesus' declaration that we (esecially a 10-year old such as yourself)are not qualified to judge. Paul is preaching the Gospel to teach Gentiles of Jesus not a point-counterpoint little girl. Read Romans 2 - there's a test tomorrow. |
|
|
immature fool, don't come on this board and ever talk scripture, you can't even see the Kingdom of God, much less quote or discuss it, it's spiritual and can only be discerned through the spirit, that most certainly, leaves you out, and since, you brought up obamas, "lay theologian" description, there is far more evidence, evidence that would suggest, obama, is a muslim, just pretending to be Christian, but after tonight, its the beginning of the end for Mr. Gantry, the Clinton machine is up and running again, you'll go all the way to the convention, now, Brob, can you say, RECREATE 68', that crews already here, and causing trouble, interrupting city counsel meetings, and demanding permits to protest during the Fascist Convention, i can hardly wait, liberal Fascists misbehavin', i just love the smell of teargas, fired at Fascists in the morning, it's going to be great. RECREATE 68', RECREATE 68', RECREATE 68', hey, obama leading the Fascists, in the streets, here in Denver, RECREATE 68', louder!!!!!!!... RECREATE 68'........, i must say, i'm really looking forward to that mess, aren't you? Hopefully, your coming, camping out in some park, probably, right? |
|
I find this maggot:
------The republican base mainly comprised of religious fanatics and racist idiots live to quote the bible while the flush the US Constitution down the toilet.....Peak Oil------
You poor demented fool. Shouldn't you be at a gay parade frolicking around blocking traffic and yelling to the world you love to suck c0ck? Or do you prefer to join your fellow wannabe fascists in throwing pies at Conservative speakers to demonstrate how tolerant you are of free speech?
|
|
|
scholar, you ignorant fool, you wouldn't know the Courthouse from the outhouse, constantly, jumping up and down, waving your arms, look at me, look at me, i'm smart, i'm smart, please notice me, i'm smart too. For crying out loud, get a job, and quit trying to be something, your not. |
|
It has always made me scratch my head in wonder when people make comments like yours. Do you think that the teachings of Paul and Jesus are somehow at odds? You do realize who Paul is, right? He was Saul and he was rounding up the Christians for the pharisees and then Christ appeared to him on the road to Damascus and called him to repentance. You know this stuff, right?
He did repent and his name was changed to Paul and then he went and did missionary work, which is where his writings in the Bible came from. On these missions and in his writings, he surprisingly enough taught the gospel of Jesus Christ. So my guess is that if Paul was saying homosexuality was bad, it is because that is part of the gospel as taught by Jesus -- which, newsflash, did not even begin in the New Testament.
You do realize that the God of the Old Testament was Jesus, right? Even though Jesus had not yet been born, the people of the Old Testament were taught the gospel of Jesus Christ and taught to look toward his coming. Their ceremonies, i.e. passover and animal sacrifice are symbolic of the Savior and His atonement. And the Old Testament also has some not so great things to say about homosexuality. Although the law of Moses went away when Jesus fulfilled his mission on earth, the gospel doctrines he and his prophets taught for thousands of years prior to that did not. That is why Christians study the entire Bible and not just the New Testament.
I realize I don't sound very nice in this post, but these arguments presented by so-called intellectuals who think they know oh so much about Christianity and how the world works just drive me crazy.
|
|
Also, do you really think everything that Jesus ever said or taught has been captured by the Bible? Do you understand that certain audiences might require certain sermons and information that other audiences don't? There wasn't a real big problem with homosexuality within the Israelite nation during Jesus' ministry. However, there was a problem with homosexuality among the Romans. Thus, Paul would address this issue with them, whereas Jesus did not see the need to do so with the Israelites.
Do you get it now? |
|
"have yet to hear any con explain why it is government's business to get involved with whether I use a condom or not."
Perhaps that's because most conservatives don't think it _is_ the government's business to get involved in that decision.
You are confounding the issue of whether banning condoms is just and good policy (I don't believe it is) with the issue of how that determination should be made. It ought to have been made by the legislature of the state of Connecticutt, not the Supreme Court. It is the precedent set by Griswold, not the decision itself, that bothers conservatives. But since Bork has been very clear about this distinction in his writings on the subject, I find myself questioning your good faith in confounding the two.
|
|
|
I am with you Brother, Recreate 68'!!! And if anybody can do that the Clintonista's can! I love it because it is just like at the Wellstone funeral, when Dems came together to plot campaign strategy at a funeral and the good people of Minnesota were appalled at such a display of political power mongering. Now the Obamaites are going to be furious with the Clintonistas when she tries to seat Florida and Michagan delegates,and it will be war.....war, OH yeah what is it GOOD FOR???;-) |
|
|
Let me give some insight on Brob. He hates Christians. He hates Republicans. And he hates Southerners. Most of all he hates all Southern, Christian Conservatives. He is a blatant bigot and he has no shame in not hiding that he is one. So you are confusing Brob with someone who has read the Bible in the first place and really wants to argue factually in the second place. I don't know what he does with Black Conservative Christians as I know quite a few I would love to have hime read their writings. |
|
|
You need to stop exhibiting your ignorance of constitutional law. I suggest you go read the Supreme Court's decsion in Lemon v. Kurtzman. If you want to talk about the rule of law, it is usually good to first find out what the law actually is. |
|
Briggsy,
Here's a little homework assignment for you (and the rest of your elitist 'I know what's best for you' crowd) - Get yourself a copy of "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. Read it cover to cover. Look in the mirror.
For those who do not fall into Briggsy's crowd, get the book and read it so that you will better understand the mentality of the modern left and be better able to defeat it whereever it rears its ugly head.
Finally, when it comes to the Bible, it is either all true or all crap, there is no in between. You don't get to pick and choose which parts you agree with. |
|
I have just now sat here and read through this whole thread. Every word. What in the world is the point of this stupid discussion? Most of them time you morons insist that Obama is a Muslim and, guess what, turns out he's a practicing Christian. So he quoted the Bible to illustrate a point. This is a sin? This is illegal? If he had said,"Blessed are the poor" or "The race is not to the swift" or "Better a dinner of herbs where love is than a stalled ox and hatred therewith" or anything else, you would have found some kind of fault.
Listen to me. In my apartment building there was a very elderly male couple, gay everyone knew but they had been together for about fifty years and were very secretive about it, not flashy or public at all. One of the old men went through a series of heart attacks and strokes and then he died. The other one took loving care of him and after the death every time you saw this eighty year-old man, in the lobby or elevator or laundry, he would either already be crying or would start to cry when you spoke to him. Now I ask you. Do you really want that old man to be denied access to the Intensive Care Unit when his partner of a half-century is dying? And if you live in a state so evil-minded and foul that it passes a law prohibiting such visitation, do you really want that law to stand and not be bettered by federal law just as school integration was enforced by the feds?
The last time I read the Sermon on the Mount I got the general idea that its main idea was "Be nice to each other". Why don't you try that? |
|
|
Does anyone remember in Iowa where Huckabee pretended to be taking the high road by saying he wouldn't run a negative ad against Romney. He said, "What profit a man if he gains the world and loses his soul?" But then minutes later he showed the ad to everyone in the mainstream media. So much for Huck's claiming he ran an "honorable" campaign. |
|
"The last time I read the Sermon on the Mount I got the general idea that its main idea was "Be nice to each other". Why don't you try that?"
It's difficult in this day and age when liberals are so bigotted and meanspirited. |
|
I agree that kindness is lacking in the world...often on this post, but there is so much more to the Sermon on the Mount than "be nice."
I am not ridiculing you, don't get me wrong, but those three chapters are about the richest collection of words in all of human history....there is so much there!
I recommend you read it again...slowly...meditating over each verse....
...and God bless.... |
|
It seems to me that a simple question would have helped. He said in the audio I heard that preceded the quote above, "I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage." So, I would just ask, "Why not?"
I presume that the reason would have something to do with his religious convictions. But if that's the case I wonder why he seems intent on telling us that the Scriptures don't actually condemn homosexuality or, at least, that that teaching is somehow overruled by other Scriptures. There's an inconsistency in this kid rhetoric that I wish some interviewer would at least ask about.
You can argue all you want about all the threads that this discussion exposes but the fact still remains that Obama says he is against gay marriage and, based on his other remarks, I have no idea why. Seems like someone should ask. |
|
Laborliar, unlike you I do not need the Supreme Court to tell me the meaning of the Constitution. First, the constitution is short, clear and to the point. Secondly I have read Federalist Papers and other documents explaining the original intent.
You're argument is so stupid I am amazed you actually make it. It's the same as defending Plessy v. Ferguson simply because your gods, the Supreme Court, found it constitutional.
Was the SC right or wrong in Plessy v. Ferguson?
If they were wrong was the Constitution wrong or just their interpretation?
If their interpretation can be wrong how do you know they are not now wrong?
Get your head out of your bum and quit letting others think on your behalf.
Changing the original meaning of the Constitution just so it fits with the way you now see the world is fascist. If you don't like the Constitution you are free to pass a constitutional amendment. Until then you must abide by the rule of law. Anything less is fascism. |
|
Dear Sir,
What is your deal? Are you wholly incapable of holding a rational conservation with other posters WITHOUT resorting to name-calling and personal insults?
You rude tactics only demonstrate your ignorance and cause the rest of us to ignore your positions.
You do yourself, and you ideas, a great disservice by the way you present yourself here.
Please grow up or go elsewhere.
LeeLee |
|
|
Thank you for saying what many here think. It's ironic that he accuses others of name-calling when it is his primary MO. |
|
You, Madame, are a fool. I use the exact same tactics as found by the Apostles in Scripture and of Christ himself - go read the way Christ spoke to the Pharisees - go read the way Paul spoke to the Jews.
If you are going to condemn me then condemn them as well. As it is I find I am in good company.
If someone is a fool it is not a name-calling to point it out. If someone is a hypocrite it is not a personal attack to point it out. It is called an objective truthful analysis.
If you don't like my style then don't read me. It is a free country.
But here is the reality & what has really gotten under your skin - I am smarter and more informed than you - I know because I have read some of your posts. You also are aware of this fact which is why you want me to go somewhere else.
If, in the future, you would like to be treated respectfully by me - as many if not most of the posters here are - then I would recommend you refrain from sophistry, leftist emotional-based argumentation and, most importantly, fascist smear tactics.
Thanks and good luck!
|
|
He's not rude....he's just emulating St. Paul.
All he does is sit around polishing his halo. When he is inspired of the Holy Spirit, he honors us with a post. St. McTex.. At least, I have no doubt that's how he views it.
Makes you wanna puke, doesn't it?
You will never hear a self-critical word out of that worm....so don't even try. He'll put you on his....list.
He is like $hit on a shoe....it lingers long after it's gone....if it ever really goes.... |
|
I thought you said you were a Christian?
Yet a Christian only attacks the merits of one's argument. You didn't refute a single thing I said - nor have you ever.
Instead you made it personal and went after me with the full vindictiveness and bile so typical of those who always fight against truth. And in doing so you made your appeal to LeeLee who chastised me for the very behavior you engaged in. Yet in your rush to crucify me you were too stupid to realize that? Or maybe you did and just didn’t care. All that matters to you Birchers is your appeal to numbers anyways.
(Don't worry LeeLee I know your type well so I will not expect or demand that you bring the full weight of your moral superiority against Paddy for failing to live up to your standards)
"You will never hear a self-critical word out of that worm"
Again I thought you said you were a Christian? And yet you would so blatantly lie?
I do want to thank you though - this is one Saint who relishes being attacked for the sake of righteousness. (A bit over the top clarity? Yeah you're right! lol)
|
|
Virginia Patriot wrote;
-------------
"Thank you for saying what many here think. It's ironic that he accuses others of name-calling when it is his primary MO."
-------------
Virginia Patriot,
How many dramatic announcements have you made in the past couple of weeks that you're 'leaving' Townhall, simply because people challenged your positions on issues ?
Maybe you shouldn't be acting like you're Popeye the Sailor Man who just ate a can of spinach.
:) |
|
St. McTex has all the qualities associated with a saint: piety, humility, selflessness, grace,long-suffering...
He is a new breed of saint.....they are called "self-appointed."
The kind of person who uses God to serve his own purposes rather than the other way around....
You do well to pay no attention....he has no credibility anyway...
God bless you LeeLee....and remember: blessed are you when reviled and cursed for His sake, for great is your reward in Heaven....
|
|
Be careful my friend - be prepared to suffer their vengeance. They care far more about their buddy cabal than they do conservatism or truth.
Go against one and you risk going against all which is typical of all elites and gangsters. They think they own this site and they will fight to protect their turf.
How did our Party and our Movement get to such a point where we have so many delinquents?
I guess that is the great danger of achieving mainstream status…?
|
|
I don't engage you because I refuse to allow myself to descend to your level. Your use of Christ and Holy Scripture to defend your behavior is quite disgusting.
I don't want or expect you to leave this forum. I would prefer you show a little maturity and respect. I seriously doubt you would speak this way to people if you were discussing these topics face-to-face. But, the anonymity of TH gives bitter people like you a forum where you can spew your hate with zero consequences. I'm sure your mother would be real proud if she read your posts. |
|
This is one Saint who is only a Saint because of the grace and mercy of God through the blood of His Son, Jesus the Christ.
I am His imperfect vessel. Like Paul said, the things I want to do I don't do and the things I do I don’t want to do. What a wretched soul I am.
However I am His. Paddy, are you judging me not?
And Paddy why would you think LeeLee would care what you had to say? You broke her golden rule. After she condemned me you went ahead and engaged in the very behavior she deplores. Yet you think she can now respect you? How do you reach that conclusion? lol
But again, Paddy, I don't want you to fret. I actually am very grateful for what you have done. Like I said earlier - thank you for the Heavenly reward I will now receive!
|
|
How's it going friend....?
Haven't seen you around much. Hope all is well with you. Check in every now and then...ok? |
|
Amen...
When the saint engages in his "tactics," he is emulating a saint, but when criticized, our poor little boy is being "judged." Reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton, actually.
He is a hypocrite in all respects. He makes an excellent....LIBERAL.
Again, God bless you LeeLee. May all your enemies be as small as this one.... |
|
"I don't engage you because I refuse to allow myself to descend to your level."
But you are engaging me and you have engaged me - so which is it?
"Your use of Christ and Holy Scripture to defend your behavior is quite disgusting."
Prove it. I made a very specific defense and provided two examples - now show me where I am wrong. If you can't then you are the one who is disgusting and the one who is mocking the truth of God out of your own sense of superiority.
Shame on you. Either have the integrity to debate the merits of my argument or admit you are wrong. If you are a Christian those are your only real options. However your argumentation now would reveal that you care more about winning whatever the cost.
"I would prefer you show a little maturity and respect."
But I don't respect them because I don't respect their arguments or their sophistic methods. And I want them to know that they should not be treated with respect while using sophistry, lies, historical revisionism, smear tactics, strawmen arguments etc.
To show them respect when they behave this way is hypocritical and I am not such a phony.
"I seriously doubt you would speak this way to people if you were discussing these topics face-to-face."
Hmmm - well it depends. The average person - no you are right. But people come here to debate and as such should abide by certain rules of decency when debating, like being honest, using reason and logic, defending their beliefs with evidentiary validation and avoiding mere personal attacks while critiquing the merits of one's argument(s).
If they can't then they deserve no respect and should be ashamed.
I am happy to comply in that department and I am sure my Mother is proud. I learned from the best. lol
|
|
|
One, that is how many. I changed my mind and it's all due to you. Thank you again. My continued presence commenting on the wrong-headedness of McAmnesty is all yours. Enjoy! |
|
"When the saint engages in his "tactics," he is emulating a saint, but when criticized, our poor little boy is being "judged." Reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton, actually."
You did judge me. You said I am never to admit or talk about being a Christian in your presence as if my Christianity was dependent upon your approval. If you want to deny this I am sure I can find the quote. My friend and your friend OHM, the honorable soul that he is, came to my defense that day which sent you backtracking and mumbling platitudes.
I have no problem being criticized - I am not as depraved as you and your Birchers are. My problem is being criticized without any merit. If you "feel" my arguments are wrong then lay out your evidence - debate me like a man with an ounce of integrity. But you can’t because if you could have you would have at least once sometime in the past 10 weeks.
Again, God bless you Paddy. May all your enemies be as small as me....
|
|
You and One Hot crack me up....!
Just like a couple of brothers.... This place wouldn't be the same without you....
cheers |
|
|
I have only engaged you for the purpose of encouraging you to employ a civil tone. I do not see myself as better, smarter, or more right than you. I appreciate your passion on the issues and only ask that you render the same respect to others that you believe you deserve. By showing respect, you will gain our respect. |
|
You are coming across as quite nervous? Do you see chinks in your armor? Is it the smell of defeat? Afraid that someone may defect?
Boy those Soviets hated defectors!
LMAO
Have you ever thought about being true to yourself and not caring what any one else thought of you, mind God of course?
|
|
Don't waste your time. We've tried this before...
He is stone crazy. I have no doubt he will still be lying awake thinking up great comebacks long after the rest of the world has called it a night.... He will always have the last word....never can just let it go, so you might as well drop it.
He cares about this far more than anybody else....but with some good psychiatric help and our prayers, he should be fine someday....
|
|
I respect your style. If that works for you then please employ it. And I am not asking for you to employ my style. To each his own!
However I use the exact same style that Paul used with the Jews. You are more of a James style person. We are all called a part for different reasons!
Christ so infuriated the Pharisees with His style they put him to death. So please try to open your mind to what I am saying.
If you can find an example where I made personal attacks without destroying their false arguments then I will apologize.
If you can't then please acknowledge that my analysis was objective even if you find it "rude". Some like Paddy and his ilk need to be treated rudely to awaken them from their lazy, liberal and licentious ways.
|
|
Paddy one of the great tactics of the Left is called transference. And you, sir, exhibit all the symptoms.
Oops I got the last word!
lmao
|
|
You see? He is now Christ and we are Pharisees.....
Is it any wonder nobody pays any attention to him? We cannot understand his otherworldy wisdom.... We are simply not worthy....
Scary crazy..... |
|
So I am not to be Christ-like?
Is that your argument now?
WOW!
And yes you are just like the Pharisees – self-righteous, hypocritical and sanctimonious to a tee.
BTW, so far LeeLee hasn't engaged you back. You may want to have the maturity to address your attacks directly towards me instead of cowardly doing them in the third person, especially since she doesn't appear to find you worthy of a retort - at least not yet.
I, however, was worthy... lol
|
|
Seeing all these people gang-up on poor McTex just made my day.
Just remember folks, he's the only one here that knows anything.
BTW... I just found out that McCain may actually win in November. He won't win by my vote because he won't get it. I'm a Conservative and he has a history of stabbing Conservatives in the back. Anyway......... His support is going to come from Democrats. And the Dems I talk to have 3 reasons they say he's their man.
1. He's not black.
2. He's not a woman.
3. He acts just like a Democrat. |
|
We know you love St. Mc. It is kinda fun watching him call everybody fools, morons, etc. make up derogatory names for them and then tell us how "Christ-like" he is....
Oh well....enough of the little poop for now....I'm bored with him. I will see if there is anything more interesting on this board....
Enjoy! |
|
Virginia Patriot wrote;
----------------
"One, that is how many. I changed my mind and it's all due to you."
----------------
Virginia Patriot,
Friend, I believe you made t-h-r-e-e dramatic announcements that you were "leaving" the Townhall threads.
And the truth is, for all of your pomp and circumstance, you never actually left.
But the fact that you indicated in another thread (today) that you would consider supporting a third-party candidacy of the blame-America, anti-Israel Ron Paul over John McCain in order to punish McCain for "McAmnesty" reveals just how little importance you place on fighting the war against Islamic Jihad. |
|
|
I'm leaning more to the Libertarian candidate at the moment. I don't agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy, but he does believe in the Constitution, something McCain does not(McCainFeingold). |
|
Actually I love it more than you Birchers. Why? Because it validates my argument – it proves the very points I have been making against you elitist Birchers.
I call no one a moron or a fool without first pointing out how their (your) rationale is moronic and foolish.
Nothing I ever write is subjectively derogatory - it is objective and backed up by my analysis which is based on valid evidence.
If you can prove otherwise go for it!
So far you haven't validated any of your hate-mongering, which again proves my point: you Birchers are really liberals.
And here is the best part… that’s why you Birchers make the list!
lol
But you are absolutely right - I do have a very low opinion of ya'll.
Serious question for you Birchers... I mean it now - very serious - put on your thinking caps... okay ready?...
Why do you need validation from others on this site?
Why aren't you confident enough in your own 'conservatism' and 'theology' to stand on your own two feet without constantly looking for your online buddies to come to your defense?
Don't you think that ultimately undermines your POV?
It's okay - your refusal to answer in itself is an answer. |
|