Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Sneering at the Sniper Movie

Rob Constitution Wrote: Jan 05, 2015 3:00 PM
How 'bout A.O. Scott?
True, the amendments came from the states' appeals for further power/protection.
The truth shall set you free. No man-made transient and malleable law can circumvent or supersede God’s natural laws. Therefore, fear not what man-made folly may be thrust upon you in the course of defending your oneness with God’s will. Stand against religious persecution and intolerance. Our country was forged on the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our founding fathers sought guidance from scripture and philosophers such as Cicero and Montesquieu. To wit… James 1:25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. Legitimate government protects liberty and justice according to "natural law.” -Cicero There are general causes, moral and physical, which act in every society, elevating it, maintaining it, or hurling it to the ground. -Montesquieu Man can embrace homosexuality. It doesn’t make it right. Man can neither embrace any other doctrine or tenet in conflict with natural law; that too shall not be right.
Don’t confuse the meaning of the words fair and equal. And man-made laws providing preferential treatment in conflict with natural law are not fair or equal. Marital law provides for the marriage of one man and one woman. When you expand that to include homosexuality, you are actually extending preferential treatment to homosexuals. Here is the definition of fair. “marked by impartiality and honesty.” Here is the definition of equal. “like in quality, nature, or status.” Or “like for each member of a group, class, or society.” There is no argument supporting homosexuality that isn’t in conflict with natural law. Therefore, making man-made laws inclusive of homosexual marriage is in conflict with natural law, and in conflict with fair and equal application of man-made law.
In response to:

De Blasio vs. The NYPD

Rob Constitution Wrote: Dec 24, 2014 11:31 AM
...also took shots at the media for “dividing” the city for only reporting about the bad folks, whom he says does not represent the majority of the protestors... Hey, Bill, isn't that exactly what protestors are doing; protesting a very small percentage of the "bad cops" who do not represent the majority of the cops who do their job well with great intentions? Bill, you complete tone-deaf, hypocritical boob! If you are going to call out the media, the media of all folks, for reporting on something that doesn't support your irretrievably stupid agenda, your verbiage is so aptly applied to the protestors who are advancing an irretrievably stupid agenda. And one that is criminally dangerous. Last time I checked, free speech doesn't include that which incites riots and violence. That is what you and the protestors have been doing ceaselessly. Why don't you spend your time uniting instead of inciting?!
I'd like to hear someone ask her on record to explain how she can tell this story in two totally different frames of reference. Did it please you or was it racist? You can't have it both ways. Of course our media and liberals have been allowing her and her husband to have most everything any way they want it for years now. I have zero respect for either of them, based on the content of their character!
I don't think they see through the prism of racism; they see through the prism of opportunism. It helps their cause and their pocketbook to peddle racism.
Slippery slope here. If the manufacturer of something/anything is culpable for the misuse of the product by someone, than here is a beginning list of additional lawsuits you would expect to see... Forks/Spoons for making people fat Knives used in violent crimes Farmers for providing food that makes people fat The fast food industry for making people fat Cigarettes for giving people lung cancer and other diseases Oh wait, ALL of these are suits that have been filed, some numerous times.
I wonder how someone who is pro-abortion can claim to be against murder. If a human being is killed, after birth, it is a crime and we all agree on that. If a fetus, from the point of conception on, is left to develop, it results in a human being. Thus, abortion is murder.
After 6 years of Obamanable, I think it is past due to impeach him. On what charges? On one or more of hundreds! In the meantime, I'm quite tired of hearing and reading about him dismissing facts, feigning ignorance, lying, acting defiant, belittling us, etc. If, as a citizenship, we don't actually do something about it, we deserve what we get. I implore everyone to write their senators and house representatives communicating their desired direction for this country. If that occurs, I believe they will have no choice but to act, as the vast majority of those who do write, if polls are any indication, will express a conservative vision. I specifically implore everyone to ask for Obamanable's impeachment!
In response to:

The Willfully Ignorant

Rob Constitution Wrote: Dec 04, 2014 12:00 PM
Making an effort to champion the truth and live an ethical and moral life is a responsibility. When we, as a society lead mainly by our liberally-biased media and power hungry politicians, rebuked personal and societal responsibility, we got exactly what we asked for. All this rhetoric is meaningless unless and until we, as a society, insist again on truth and personal responsibility. In the meantime our country's decay will continue, probably to the extent of irretrievable collapse.
Previous 11 - 20 Next