Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

The Love Affair Ends

Dianne87 Wrote: Oct 31, 2014 4:54 PM
Do you have any idea of my previous post? Unlike you I actually expect something from the Republicans other than politics as usual. You sound like you're in favor of divisiveness. I don't expect much at all from the Democrats, or ideologues. I do think there are many people that are sick of bickering and nothing being done to help Americans as a whole. Unfortunately for us, we have to rely on politicians to implement government. To hurl insults just show ill breeding.
In response to:

The Love Affair Ends

Dianne87 Wrote: Oct 31, 2014 12:44 PM
Exactly how are the Republicans going to implement that small government policy? Have you seen or heard any definitive policies from them? Republicans seem to always foul their chances by being basically ineffectual. It is time that divisiveness be called out and that the American people be united in some fashion by an actual demand for policies that will help them, not just the GOP or Dems. There is so much that needs to be overhauled, and we can start with taxes. The Republicans would be wise to try and work with consensus rather than take intransigent positions.
In response to:

LGBT Strikes Again: Comply or Die

Dianne87 Wrote: Oct 13, 2014 11:55 PM
The two of you make a judgmental pair!
In response to:

LGBT Strikes Again: Comply or Die

Dianne87 Wrote: Oct 13, 2014 6:23 PM
The first amendment guarantees civil and religious rights. If the state usurps religious rights in favor of civil rights, where are we? Does the state become the sole arbiter of the definition of marriage? Is marriage not an institution, and if so, does that make it an inalienable right? If the definition of marriage as one man and one woman has stood for thousands of years throughout the world, why does a small minority, protected as it is, have the right to redefine the institution of marriage? Most, not all, Americans don't wish to interfere with what goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their home. Great if people love each other. Can't argue with that. I don't care what your sexual proclivities are as long as they are not criminal. I do care that a founding structure of society is under attack to promote an agenda. It comes down to which rights will have precedent. Changing the definition of marriage, civilly, will forever change religious rights. Like it or not this country was establish on the freedom of religious beliefs. The state could not interfere with the expression of religion. It could not establish a state sponsored religion. All of which means that something is going to have to give in this argument. It is a fundamental wedge issue. It is the interference of the state into religion. Just as the ACA is. And last, why are the rights of two guys/gals wanting to have their relationship reclassified as a marriage, rather than being satisfied with a legal ‘union contract,’ more important than the will of the majority of voters in two dozen states?
In response to:

LGBT Strikes Again: Comply or Die

Dianne87 Wrote: Oct 13, 2014 12:47 PM
What does the New Testament say?
In response to:

LGBT Strikes Again: Comply or Die

Dianne87 Wrote: Oct 13, 2014 12:02 PM
And in Orwellian fashion, she ordered the Giffords to indoctrinate their staff with re-education training classes so they can ‘learn’ the state’s viewpoint on marriage… It seems to me that the crux of the matter in regards to the activist LGBT community is to abolish legally, religion. It's no longer separation of Church and State, but State only. Religion is the last institution to defeat to gain a purely LEFTIST/COMMUNIST rule. Remember as originally stated the 1st amendment is about freedom of religion, not a state endorsed religion. Through the courts that meaning changed. Leftism is a religion, and a zealous one at that, if being a true believer is any indication of an indoctrinated belief.
November 1st is All Saint's Day. Any reason for choosing that day? Who knows? Her religious beliefs are unknown to us by reading this article. Many comments offer religious teachings to try and help this situation. If you follow any of these teachings you are then mollified by them. Will they help Maynard per se? Death is still a mystery to most of us and a fearful event. Terminal illness is also a fearful event. Facing our fears is always what makes us grow. There are many mentally ill people who have committed suicide. Are they also responsible for not acting according to scripture? This is a thorny predicament and one that society as a whole really needs to examine. It is a purview of religion to deal with this, but for those that are not religious, it won't help. If you are living, then for sure you will die. It's always the how which we must face, and yet know that we do not have the control we might think we have. It's the choice one makes during crises that determine who we are.
In response to:

Is the French Revolution Our New Model?

Dianne87 Wrote: Oct 09, 2014 9:13 PM
Poor Rousseau, always taking the blame for things. Read Voltaire, can't go wrong.
In response to:

Is the French Revolution Our New Model?

Dianne87 Wrote: Oct 09, 2014 8:57 PM
The French revolution occurred in 1789. American in 1775. The ratification of the American Constitution ended in 1790. France was instrumental in the success of the American Revolution. Go figure.
In response to:

Is the French Revolution Our New Model?

Dianne87 Wrote: Oct 09, 2014 8:45 PM
Nice explanation. Also, whom is the object of a preposition, to, for, by, and so on.
In response to:

Is the French Revolution Our New Model?

Dianne87 Wrote: Oct 09, 2014 8:34 PM
Although I appreciate your last sentence, you seem very naive. You must be young. At least you are somewhat involved in what is going on. If you were to read some of Victor Davis Hanson's books, and other's that present history and it's relevance to current events you will have a better understanding. Just who is fabricating apparently is determined solely by ideology at this point in history. The truth can never be fabricated. It either is or isn't.
Previous 11 - 20 Next