Posted on 04/03/2005 6:42:45 PM PDT by Gondring
That is not true. Modern Conservatism is not simply a rehash of Confederate urges.
I'm no Christian, but even I know living with bitternes in your heart is living in sin.
The federal government is the final protector of indivdual rights and that is its reason for being, period. There is no conflict between conservatism and indivdual rights, noen at all.
Here, here. I've been saying that since last Monday. Once the dirt surfaces, then it will be backlash central for liberals and the media.
I'm a conservative. What happened to States' Rights? I guess we just throw those out and don't even dare to raise the issue when we don't like something?
Ok you've had your cry, now buck up and show us your grit.
You would think that only criminals would have to worry about this. Criminals get better treatment than TS got. TS did nothing wrong. But something is wrong here.
The ones with the "right God" are the ones whose God doesn't tell them to murder innocent people. It's pretty simple, really.
Stop espousing the Constitution, jwalsh. What do you think this is? A Republic? How dare you!
:) Denote sarcasm.
This is a country of LAWS...Spare me from any Theocracy..Taliban or Christian!
Are you pointing to Republican Catholics maybe? Or possibly you think it's just a gang of holyrollers.
Let's get some definition going here so we can know how to respond to you.
There is but One who will rule on earth in that day. His name isn't Mohammed. But on this side of the reign of Christ (now), we live with effects of sin....such as injustice, lack of mercy, and the hardness of mens hearts.
LOL!
Interesting, isn't it, that when I presented an argument based on constitutionalism, annyokie avoided arguing her incoherent claims on their merits, and launched into some spiel about how only kindergarteners are supposed to be civil to one another, etc.
Whenever one of the stareving-Terri-is-cool "federalists" make a claim for the "rule of law" or "federalism" they never back it up with an argument.
If they did, they would be forced to argue that the judiciary should exercise total power over the executive and legislative branches of the government - a preposterous belieing of their original premise.
"Once the dirt surfaces"
Judicial activists will see that it doesn't. They can't afford it.
There is no talking to these people. Law is only good if it's what they agree with. Adjudicated? So what! I don't like it.
Yuk!
What will you say to the Jews, Budhists,etc on this forum?
Don't underestimate the American people. It will be individual Americans that do the dustbusting.
Not to worry, FRiend. There is no way I can take annyokie's rhetoric seriously. Catholics have made up the strongest pro-Life voice I've seen on FR. Thank God for it and them! :-)
Indeed? Where, specifically, does it say that? That it is "immoral to starve helpless people to death"? I'm not talking about recent pronouncements from the Vatican. I'm talking about established Catholic and/or Christian catechism
The rule of law has nothing to do with judicially-sanctioned murder....
Actually, the rule of law has everything to do with judicially sanctioned murder.
This country would not even be an independent nation if our forefathers had adhered to a theoretical rule of law devoid of any moral content.
And this country would not even be an independent nation if our forefathers had adhered to a theocratical rule of law.
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.