Posted on 02/04/2007 11:08:45 AM PST by Clintonfatigued
Rights like a trial by a jury of your peers before one judge orders your death?
Hell, even that idiot Jesse Jerkson saw that one...
You actually will select a candidate for president based on your perception of the comportment of certain posters on this site?
And thus, we lose the Republic, and darkness falls.
Sorry, Ben, we couldn't keep it. We had a good run, though, didn't we?
Socially conservative political opportunism. I'm impressed with the article in that it admits it, but not with rationalizing it as a good thing.
Sorry. Abortions aren't committed in bedrooms, and the radical homosexual agenda is being forwarded in the public square and the public schools, not in a closet.
Then they'd weep at the thought of the loss of the Republic.
They'd weep that people like you could have so lost sight of righteousness and of the fact that God considers certain things abominable.
"It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." - Patrick Henry
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson
Rudy/Newt2008!!!!!
Mega dittos to that one!!!
Uhmmm...I think it's more than "ZERO" don't you?
It is a fact that a very large majority of the population were in favor of Schiavo being terminated. I think they were wrong, and the issue was wildly misreported by the media, but that doesn't change the numbers.
Those of us opposed to her being killed did not do an adequately effective job of presenting our side. We failed to convince people.
Those are facts that cannot be wished away by pointing out that we were right. We were indeed right, but we still lost big time.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...
I did not say that...
I should add, that the other point the author is making is that social conservatives should forget about social issues per se, so as to not drive off more centrists seculars (who will not given the culture war stench be willing to consider other conservative ideas outside of those trenches), and just focus on SCOTUS nominations. Assuming that they believe Giuliani is solid on that issue, some will buy into that logic, and some will not.
What did you mean then? Which supporters did you have in mind?
It was a mob lynching...
I suggest to you that you educate yourself on the concepts of federalism and limited government.
It is true that, with enough votes, Congress can pass whatever Amendment to the Constitution it pleases.
And thus, we lose the Republic.
I'm probably wasting my breath on you about this, but maybe not. We can only hope.
Assuming that includes homosexuality, given that believers believe God created man in his own image, if you became convinced as a scientific fact that some people are wired from birth to be gay, would that influence your theological assumption that God considers such behavior an abomination?
If those that think Rudy's views on Guns, Queer partnerships/marriage, and partial birth abortion wouldn't or shouldn't matter would just look at polls on those issues in every Red state they would know how hopeless it is to ignore the facts.
Republicans can't win if their views only sell in liberal blue states. It simply wont work.
The Founders never intended for religious issues to be decided by the federal government.
If they had, they would not have abolished religious tests as a pre-requisite to office.
No, that is not true. States ratify Amendments...
I suggest to you that you educate yourself on the concepts of federalism...
Federalism is spelled out here quite clearly... you need to educate yourself in the English language...
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...
I wouldn't get sucked into debating what God thinks is abominable.
God isn't going to weigh in on this definitively, so we're all just guessing.
The real issue is whether the United States government is to be run according to the doctrine of any particular religious sect or another.
The Founders, who learned their history lessons from educated teachers, learned that the admixture of religion and politics doesn't really advance either one, and we wind up with the worst of both.
There's a line between getting too divisive on social issues and giving up, and if Rudy's elected, we'll see a lot of fights here.
Who controls Congress is also going to matter. Some of the the things secular centrists objected to in the Bush years wouldn't have happened if the GOP hadn't had a solid majority in Congress.
So maybe making the right court appointments is both the most and the least Rudy will be able to do, if elected.
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.