Posted on 02/13/2016 12:24:33 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
"...[Pastor Mark Burns] repeated four times: "Donald Trump is pro-faith. He is pro-faith. He is pro-faith. He is pro-faith."
But an attendee called out loudly that Trump is "profane" - presumably referring to Trump's use of the word "pussy" on stage to mock opponent Sen. Ted Cruz and other such statements over the course of the campaign.
Burns responded by admitting that Trump's language is profane.
"Let me tell you one thing, I'm grateful you said that, that Donald Trump is profane, and that's what you're saying," he said. "Donald Trump is profane, but guess what? ... I don't know about you but I don't trust a man that doesn't have mistakes. I don't trust a man that doesn't have the ability to have mistakes and then recognize those mistakes and then do what it takes to change."
Burns tied the argument into the Christian gospel, that no one can earn salvation through works alone...."
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Supreme Court had to rule that way, or else more than a hundred years of precedent and government action with railroads, oil pipelines (which you support) blighted neighborhoods, etc., are all instantly illegal. I'll also add that businesses do indeed deserve and need protection when they've purchased huge amounts of land, but have their investment endangered by a holdout, or from individuals who blackmail developers.
What's needed is a constitutional amendment that will define, properly, the total limits of eminent domain.
Actually, I don't since there is nothing in Ted Cruz's past actions that would even hint at such a thing. Cruz once clerked for Michael Luttig. His Conservative bonafides are impeccable.
Well, there is: 1) His lie about self-funding his campaign, spending his savings and liquidating his assets, when he did neither and had hid his loans from Goldman Sachs. 2) His description of his wife as a "dissident" on the CFR, without coming clean about her endorsing the North American Union 3) His lies about his support for legalization, and his support for doubling green cards and expanding H1B visas by 500 percent. 4) His lies about TPA, blaming his campaign for it on McConnel, and then, when it became expedient, declaring he opposes TPP while still supporting basically everything about it except the immigration portions he had previously mocked as the stuff of "internet conspiracy theory." 5) Cruz's deep Dominionist ties, which advocate a Christian world order where the wealth of the wicked is transferred into the hands of the "righteous." 6) Cruz's donors.
There are tons of problems with Cruz and no reason to think that he won't appoint someone to the court who has similar "conservative" globalist beliefs.
This statement clearly illustrates that you do not have a clue what Kelo was all about. Better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
This statement clearly illustrates you have no clue what Kelo was about, otherwise you would explain it.
I KNOW YOU ARE, SO WHAT AM I?
I KNOW YOU ARE, SO WHAT AM I?
You literally falsely accused me of having it wrong just based on an assertion, even though I've read all the court documents on the matter and have studied precedent and history on the subject. The fact is, you do not understand Kelo, because you also support the Keystone Pipeline yet oppose Kelo.
Here is your statement again:
Supreme Court had to rule that way, or else more than a hundred years of precedent and government action with railroads, oil pipelines (which you support) blighted neighborhoods, etc., are all instantly illegal.
Kelo had nothing to do with railroads, oil pipelines, or blighted neighborhoods. So the decision had zero effect on more than a hundred years of precedent and government action. And why? Again, because Kelo had nothing to do with the examples you cite.
Instead, it was Kelo that overturned a hundred years of precedent. Because before Kelo, eminent domain was only used for public use. But with Kelo, government can take anyone's property away at any time as long as they can hope to derive more property taxes from the people they give the property to. And for some inexplicable reason, you support this.
Even Bernie Sanders of all people opposed the Kelo decision. But not you. And not Trump either. So congrats. You and Donald Trump align yourselves to the left of Bernie Sanders.
Pipeline is entirely privately owned. There is no government ownership over the pipeline. There is no direct profit from Kelo, aside from increased tax revenues. It is "public use" in that it provides a public benefit. Public benefit is the reasoning behind Kelo, and also all the other court cases that preceded Kelo.
Kelo had nothing to do with railroads, oil pipelines, or blighted neighborhoods.
Yes it did; precedent used in the case was Bernan v. Parker, dealing explicitly with developing blighted neighborhoods. Hawaii vs. Makliff, similar, but dealing with breaking up a supposed land monopoly (a bad decision, but also used as precedent and even defended by O'Connor writing for the dissent).
Kelo’s neighborhood was not blighted.
Petitioner Susette Kelo has lived in the Fort Trumbull area since 1997. She has made extensive improvements to her house, which she prizes for its water view. Petitioner Wilhelmina Dery was born in her Fort Trumbull house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life. Her husband Charles (also a petitioner) has lived in the house since they married some 60 years ago. In all, the nine petitioners own 15 properties in Fort Trumbull-4 in parcel 3 of the development plan and 11 in parcel 4A. Ten of the parcels are occupied by the owner or a family member; the other five are held as investment properties. There is no allegation that any of these properties is blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area.
So are you arguing "if blighted do it" now or "no transfer of property to private hands?" That said, the entire city was considered disadvantaged, heavy unemployment, and the courts ruled that there was indeed a public benefit (increased economic activity).
No, I am arguing that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Kelo. You specifically made the case that the Kelo property was blighted. It was not.
Where did I say that? I never said that at all. You made a general statement saying "Kelo not about railroads, pipelines, or blighted neighborhoods." I responded by factually pointing out that Kelo used Bernan v. Parker as precedent. That case dealt with blighted neighborhoods. The general logic in all these cases is that "public use" may be interpreted as "public benefit," which is used to justify pipelines, blighted neighborhoods, or eminent domain in suffering cities all at once.
What you’re not aware of is how painful Trump’s biography is to you. It’s not God’s fault that Trump sees himself as one of the elect, above sin, never having to ask for forgiveness (as he said he doesn’t). You’re the type of person who thinks Trump is without sin because he’s your type of candidate: crude, vulgar, mean-spirited, and crass.
So, while you call me mean spirited, crass and crude, you just outed yourself with those qualities. You know nothing about me, and your hatred for Trump is a bigger sin than vulgar words that Trump might use. You choose your candidate and I’ll choose mine - you won’t change my mind, so, regardless of insults you sling at me - you are wasting your breath.
If you’re insulted, it’s because I’m right. I said he’s your type of candidate. Clearly, he is. You agree that he is. You consider it judgmental to note his biography, even a sin. (LOL). You said nothing I can say will change your mind. I realize that. Trump has special dispensation. No one ever with his attitude, personal life, wife-shucking, bragging about adultery in his books, running roughshod over the little man with self-serving eminent domain, ties to organized crime, crony capitalism, crude cursing from the dais, liberal political history, personal contributions to Democrats, praise of Obama, Hillary, and Bill, close personal association with the Clintons, and on and on would ever be accepted as a conservative until this guy bamboozled people with his phony conservatism. So he’s your type of candidate. Embrace him.
You were a Perry fan... Right?
I’ve supported Forbes, Perry and Walker.
Who have you supported?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.