Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

The Next Sexual Revolution Has Arrived

jlindquist Wrote: Jul 16, 2012 9:24 PM
continued from above: marriage relationship as being between one man and one woman. What God has authorized, man has no authority to redefine.
In response to:

The Next Sexual Revolution Has Arrived

jlindquist Wrote: Jul 16, 2012 9:24 PM
continued from above: marriage relationship as being between one man and one woman. What God has authorized, man has no authority to redefine.
In response to:

The Next Sexual Revolution Has Arrived

jlindquist Wrote: Jul 16, 2012 9:24 PM
continued from above: marriage relationship as being between one man and one woman. What God has authorized, man has no authority to redefine.
In response to:

The Next Sexual Revolution Has Arrived

jlindquist Wrote: Jul 16, 2012 9:24 PM
continued from above: marriage relationship as being between one man and one woman. What God has authorized, man has no authority to redefine.
In response to:

The Next Sexual Revolution Has Arrived

jlindquist Wrote: Jul 16, 2012 9:24 PM
continued from above: marriage relationship as being between one man and one woman. What God has authorized, man has no authority to redefine.
In response to:

The Next Sexual Revolution Has Arrived

jlindquist Wrote: Jul 16, 2012 9:16 PM
The Bible in Genesis 2:24 states, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother , and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." In the context of this Bible verse God establishes the marriage relationship as being between a man and a woman. This unique relationship between a man and a woman was established by God and not by man. Jesus Christ spoke of this unique relationship between a man and a woman as written in Mark 10:6-9 by quoting from Genesis 2:24. Specifically in Mark 10:9 Jesus said , "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Jesus therefore reinterates the truth of what God has established from the beginning of the history of man. God has clearly defined the only legitimate...
By the way what color are your crayons? You advocate more and more government solutions when the government is building a bigger and bigger deficit under Obama. And you say keep spending, break the bank, borrow more from the Federal Reserve. In the wisdom of our founding fathers the federal government was not given the authority to engage in endeavors such as the ACA.
Oh really True, I mean red colors, how do you know this? The common myth perpetuated by left wing idealogues such as yourself is that Republicans are rich and Democrats are poor. On this you have created your own stereotype. Of course arrogant liberals think that they are experts on everything when instead they know little. And yet you supposedly abhor PC stereotypes.
Oh really True, I mean red colors, how do you know this? The common myth perpetuated by left wing idealogues such as yourself is that Republicans are rich and Democrats are poor. On this you have created your own stereotype. Of course arrogant liberals think that they are experts on everything when instead they know little. And yet you supposedly abhor PC stereotypes.
I commend Governor Rick Perry for rejecting the unconstitutional mandate of Obamacare. Yes unconstitutional! The individual mandate is a penalty which is implemented upon those persons who refuse to comply and not a tax as Roberts asserts. I am sure that justice Roberts knows this but for some unstated reason he sided with the untenable position that the mandate is a tax. In reality the whole system of Obamacare is unconstitutional because nowhere in the U.S. constitution is the federal government given the authority to implement this massive government intrusion. Anything in the constitution that does not specifically authorize the federal government to do a certain thing goes back to the states in accordance with the 10th amendment.
In response to:

Onward

jlindquist Wrote: Jun 29, 2012 12:58 AM
Have you `ever read the language in the constitution, "congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states". The word "among" is the key word here. This is referring to interstate commerce. The founders were concerned that the states would impede the free flow of goods and services across state lines. This has nothing to do with congress telling a state what it cannot do or an individual what he cannot buy or sell. The liberal idealogue, "Patriotic Liberal", is only interested in centralizing government power in accordance with his own idealogy and is really not interested in the literal reading of the constitution. Regulating "interstate" commerce to benefit the free flow of goods and services is granted to congress
Previous 21 - 30 Next