I should have typed:
- Let's keep LOSER Walker in his home state.
We don't need any more SELLOUTS in Washington D.C., and especially in the Oval Office!
Posted on 05/21/2015 2:23:17 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Babies will be saved because he signs this, but you say it is wrong for him to sign it?
And you’re up the creek without a paddle.
That’s a Utilitarian mirage. Babies won’t be saved by surrendering the only two moral, constitutional, and legal arguments against abortion. All they’re doing, in fact, is assuring the continuation of abortion on demand. Especially since they are also judicial supremacists.
Liberal elite garbage...
I know about all the "pro-life credentials" touted by these candidates. They're pathetic, and most of it also in effect ends with "and then you can kill the baby." Which is immoral and unconstitutional. Why would I be impressed by that?
Nothing is being surrendered. Babies are being saved as we move forward.
Abortion on demand is continuing but the tide has been reversed.
In law, there are always more ways forward.
You take your victories as you can and press on.
Showcasing your piety, appears to be the only thing that impresses you.
Walker’s running for president.
No babies are being saved by surrendering the principle of God-given, unalienable rights and equal protection under the law. Again, that's a Utilitarian mirage. If it's a "step forward,' it's another step forward into the abyss. An abyss without equal protection for the supreme God-given, unalienable, individual right, without justice, without a Constitution, without commitment to the sacred oath of office, without security under the law for ourselves or our Posterity.
Folks who can't defend their position or their candidate often resort to such crude misdirection. But you should know better.
Not by immoral, unconstitutional, lawless "laws."
The only way to turn the tide is to demand that our representatives fulfill the first and most important obligation of their oaths, which is to secure the unalienable individual rights of the people, all of the people.
Walker believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.
.......................................................
I'm wide open to a better argument than that. His words say one thing, his actions say another. I'm very far from a perfect Christian but wouldn't consider going to any homosexual celebration of any kind for any reason for any person. I just can't see it being justified in any situation.
I have not seen anything to say Cruz has attended any such event. I will be greatly disappointed if I find otherwise. Please let me know if you find something.
fwiw, I see Walker's (very) good points and in all likelihood will vote for him if he is the candidate. I will also lay off posting the same reply to your Walker posts.
All the best.
It the same old crap, different day. They have not changed their play since Hitler. Some of it is even older. If you know history, you know why are are saying and doing. The play is to kill Conservatives. It will be the same tomorrow.
You mean what is Cruz’s record in attending homosexual marriage events?
Events.
Events is entirely different, and especially events where there might be a homosexual there.
You, me, and the Pope go to events where homosexuals are at, but the issue is about Scott Walker attending homosexual marriage events.
Of course.
I don’t know why there was such a big kerfuffle when Cruz attended that fundraiser in Las Vegas.
Wow! You’d think he had committed a Cardinal sin being at a fundraiser hosted by a gay couple.
What did you think about that?
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.
