L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
This article basically spells that out for you:
- Status
K
KathleenT
Guest
Well, as someone who is a lawyer I can tell you most of our laws and legal heritage are based in principles of natural law. Funny enough, Catholic morality is also supported by natural law. There is less conflict than most people believe, especially because the Church does recognize the government’s authority to make and enforce laws.
P
phil19034
Guest
Honestly, most of the people running for President from the Democrats side make Hillary look more moderate 
Also, I saw a poll today that said approx 70% of Dems would want AOC running’s if she was old enough!!!
As the Democrats become more and more open about their socialism, they are really scaring the heck out of me.
www.nbcnews.com
Also, I saw a poll today that said approx 70% of Dems would want AOC running’s if she was old enough!!!
As the Democrats become more and more open about their socialism, they are really scaring the heck out of me.
Poll: 3/4 Dems would consider backing Ocasio-Cortez for president — but she's not old enough
The 29-year-old New York lawmaker is a rising star in the party.
www.nbcnews.com
Last edited:
K
kwitz
Guest
Very pretty. We need to go back but we’re not EF people. The steeples are amazing.
O
otjm
Guest
I am not sure that is a fair comment; Islam is not a religion; it is a theocracy, and a number of its rules are in direct contradiction to our Constitution. It seems easy for us to presume that such questions would only be about morality; but the issues which divide are far deeper than just morality.
One does not need to get into Christian morality to understand that abortion is taking a life, and our constitution did not install any differences between a child in the womb and one out of the womb. Roe v. Wade was not made on a specifically anti-Christian basis; the judges heged the issue of when a child in the womb becomes a child (and science is way farther advanced now than it was when Roe passed).
One would not have to go to Christian morality to reverse it; simply an appeal to science as it now stands wpi;d be sufficient to find that a child, in or out of the womb is entitled to life and the intentional destruction of that life violates not only the law of Christian countries, but many others which hold that innocent life deserves protection.
The same can be said for the issue of homosexual “marriage”; there are plenty of non Christian and a-Christian countries which did not recognize homosexual unions as marriage.
One does not need to get into Christian morality to understand that abortion is taking a life, and our constitution did not install any differences between a child in the womb and one out of the womb. Roe v. Wade was not made on a specifically anti-Christian basis; the judges heged the issue of when a child in the womb becomes a child (and science is way farther advanced now than it was when Roe passed).
One would not have to go to Christian morality to reverse it; simply an appeal to science as it now stands wpi;d be sufficient to find that a child, in or out of the womb is entitled to life and the intentional destruction of that life violates not only the law of Christian countries, but many others which hold that innocent life deserves protection.
The same can be said for the issue of homosexual “marriage”; there are plenty of non Christian and a-Christian countries which did not recognize homosexual unions as marriage.
O
otjm
Guest
Harris (along with Pelosi, Schumer and the radical part of the Democratic party) may well be the salvation rather than bogeyman. For whatever you may think of Muller’s investigation, no charges have been made which tie in any way to the collusion narrative; he has only charged people with the crime of lying to the FBI, tax fraud, or other crimes committed well before the election.
And the House Democrats have openly said they intend to pursue investigations which could lead to impeachment proceedings against Trump and Kavanaugh.
What many of the Democrats seem to be unable to grasp is that they are playing to their constituency, and are running a serious risk of alienating not only Republicans, but also Independents and the conservative end of their party. The phrase “Give them enough rope and they will eventually hang themselves” is at play, and history, while not exactly repeating itself, does rhyme - the Republicans shot themselves in the foot going after Bill Clinton.
Nancy already has Democrats saying “get over it and negotiate; give them the wall”, and are starting to do so publicly. Nancy telling Trump he will not be invited to appear before Congress for the State of the Union may not go over well with anyone except die-hard “impeach him” fans.
Harris’ performance, along with Hirono are not going to go away, particularly if Ruth decides to step down. Whether Amy Coney Barrett is proposed (which I somewhat doubt) or someone else, many of the judges proposed for seats on the Federal Bench have been women and men of faith, and the grilling has not been any less appalling for the blatant religious test. Amy would bring something close to a nuclear meltdown.
Kamala has a history both as a prosecuting attorney and as the attorney general which doesn’t do her any favors. As she is publicly running against Trump, she will be in the news at least weekly, unless and until someone in the party moves seriously ahead of her, or she simply does not chart well at all with the non-announced runners. The circus is just getting started.
And the House Democrats have openly said they intend to pursue investigations which could lead to impeachment proceedings against Trump and Kavanaugh.
What many of the Democrats seem to be unable to grasp is that they are playing to their constituency, and are running a serious risk of alienating not only Republicans, but also Independents and the conservative end of their party. The phrase “Give them enough rope and they will eventually hang themselves” is at play, and history, while not exactly repeating itself, does rhyme - the Republicans shot themselves in the foot going after Bill Clinton.
Nancy already has Democrats saying “get over it and negotiate; give them the wall”, and are starting to do so publicly. Nancy telling Trump he will not be invited to appear before Congress for the State of the Union may not go over well with anyone except die-hard “impeach him” fans.
Harris’ performance, along with Hirono are not going to go away, particularly if Ruth decides to step down. Whether Amy Coney Barrett is proposed (which I somewhat doubt) or someone else, many of the judges proposed for seats on the Federal Bench have been women and men of faith, and the grilling has not been any less appalling for the blatant religious test. Amy would bring something close to a nuclear meltdown.
Kamala has a history both as a prosecuting attorney and as the attorney general which doesn’t do her any favors. As she is publicly running against Trump, she will be in the news at least weekly, unless and until someone in the party moves seriously ahead of her, or she simply does not chart well at all with the non-announced runners. The circus is just getting started.
Last edited:
F
Fets
Guest
You know the scariest thing I’ve heard?
Michelle Obama running for President.
If she decided that tomorrow, do you think Biden or Beto would still be front runners? She’s scarier than any of them.
Michelle Obama running for President.
If she decided that tomorrow, do you think Biden or Beto would still be front runners? She’s scarier than any of them.
D
dochawk
Guest
I suspect she outsmarted herself.
She was playing to California thinking/attitudes. She seems to be part of the group that just doesn’t understand that the rest of the country doesn’t have the CA/NY/MA attitudes . . . and that for most of the other 47 states, “Christian” is not a derogatory term . . .
We’re Americans.
We don’t like any of our politicians!
:crazy_face:
hawk
- Status