Posted on 08/19/2007 9:52:10 AM PDT by wagglebee
Just checking.
The exact opposite of today's "liberalism."
Not all Christians view divorce as a sin.
Also, someone please tell me who has a better shot of beating Hillary than Giuliani? She has to be beaten, even if it is by someone like Giuliani, who comes off as liberal on several key issues, but more conservative on the most important, imo. Who else could reasonably beat Hillary?
Rooty has LESS of a chance of beating Hillary than anyone.
Because Reagan wanted to make the marriage work but in the end agreed that it would be best to go their separate ways. You can't force anyone to be with you if they don't want to.
Usually the person initiating the divorce is not the person that screwed up.
Well, that's true, but in Reagan's case it wasn't any external factors that caused the divorce other than the fact that Wyman disagreed with Reagan's politics.
What is Rudy “conservative” on?
You have any hard evidence to back up this OPINION? Seriously, who?
Sheesh! I’ve tangled with you before on these Giuliani threads, narses. Go back and read.
For the edification of those who might not know:
I was baptized and raised a Catholic. Since the Catholic church is a business, and not a religion, and full of s*it to boot, I guess I am a ‘lapsed’ Catholic. However, the Christian philosophy is all well and fine, I just hate it when those who claim they live by it never seem to remeber “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, and then try to explain that way with gibberish about ‘repentance’.
I don’t think Christ was saying anything about repentence, he was talking about being a hypocrite, in this regard.
As for guns, I live in NYC (born and raised), own four guns (including long arms) and Rudy and his Gestapo never came to my front door seeking to take them from me. What happened in this city was that the requirements for renewing applications was changed (by the City Council and State Legislature, you know, the elected bodies that make the laws? The Mayor of NYC doesn’t make the law, he’s an administrator charged with enforcing it), and continue to change, and many folks failed to keep up with the new regulations. Therefore, their gun permits were revoked and their weapoons classed “illegal”. If I recally, narses, you once cited the story of “Pharmboy” as an example of Rudy’s “gun grabbing” and it turned out that teh reason he lost his permit was because he failed to learn that the city wa sno longer accepting mail-in applications.
People who are too lazy to leanrn the law, and too lazy to do what is necessary to comply with it, don’t deserve guns, and are probably being kept alive by mechanical means.
Abortion; why it is still necessary, int he 21st century, to have make arguments AGAINST infanticide, is beyond me. However, the issue is not one of morality for many people, but rather convenience and avoidance of responsibility. People who think this way are by definition, incapable of being moral. However, the solution to this problem is not a constitutional manuever or the writing of draconian laws; it is a cultural effort aimed at instilling a sense of respnisbility in people. This is where the various churches are most effective, not in the legislative process. We have a separation of church and state in this country for a reason: so that membership in a specific faith or congregation is not one (or perhaps the sole) qualification for public office.
Republican government only has the ability to affect people’s lives at the margins. Cultural institutions have a much greater effect, when they are focused on doing what they do best -— which is winning hearts and minds one at atime -— rather than artificially skewing the electoral process.
Gay rights: I don;t care if anyone is gay. I don’t care to know about it, either, and I certainly don’t want anyone discriminated against because of it. The arguments surrounding gay marriage have all been covered by existing law and cultural norms; if you wish to live together, go ahead. If you want your lover to inherit your property, write a will. If you wish to leave instructions for who is allowed to see you in a hospital or make medical decisions on your behalf, write a living will. The motiviations behind the push for Gay Marriage have nohing to do with good government or the betterment of society; they are matters of emotional degree, and simple economics.
Having said that, the answer is “no”, only because 10,000 years of human experience says so.
I don’t disagree with most of the “social conservative” agenda, narses, I only disagree with your heavy-handed and hypocritical activities on it’s behalf.
If Rooty Toot really thought he could beat Hillary, then why was he afraid to run against her in 2000 and again in 2006?
This election might hinge on crossover voters, why would liberals abandon the ‘Rats to vote for a liberal Republican? Moreover, there is a huge contingent of conservatives who WILL NOT vote for a liberal regardless of party affiliation. Catholics make up a huge voting block and were responsible for our victories in 2000 and 2004, yet many Catholics ONLY vote for the GOP because of social issues, a pro-abortion and pro-homosexual candidate will end this.
... I only disagree with your heavy-handed and hypocritical activities on it’s behalf.Good, then my efforts are working.
“The sin the Church helped your mother avoid was adultery.”
HOW DARE YOU?
You know nothing about my mother and what sort of person she is, so do yourself a favor and don’t make comments like this about her. It’s one thing if we disagree about politics and political theory, but I haven’t disparaged your mother. Don’t try doing it to mine.
And I don’t give a rat’s behind what the Catholic Church thinks.
“Good, then my efforts are working. “
Your efforts are wasted, because I was taught to think. Not repost other-people’s words.
narses, after the mother comment, I think I will ignore you. You obviously don’t have anything intelligent to say.
Too bad. You brought your mother into this and misstated the reason the Church refuses some divorced people remarriage. If a divorced person’s ex-spouse dies, they can remarry - ditto if they can show canonically how the prior marriage was a nullity. Otherwise, in the eyes of the Church, they are STILL MARRIED. A subsequent marriage would be bigamous and adulterous.
BTW, your gratuitous insults to my Catholic faith are real and ugly. I made no such insult to your mother. You took the facts as insults. That is a modern liberal response, like much of your odd screeds.
Is it your habit to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as "unintelligent"?
Bingo!
No, it is my habit to dismiss unintelligent people as being unintelligent.
Sad but true. And even more sad is you still can’t give me a name.
And we have a Rooty Rooter who somehow flew around the bugzapper in our midst.
You want names of who could beat Hillary?:
Hunter, Huckabee, Thompson, Romney and probably even Paul.
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.