One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
donaled trump ended his presidency last night
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 next>>
Jan 12, 2019 01:03:01   #
at41
 
TommyRadd wrote:
I’ve got news for you: Row vs Wade isn’t part of the constitution.

A baby with a heartbeat isn’t a mere blob, it’s a life, and that’s a biological fact. Snuffing out a human life is called murder. Murdering an innocent life in order to remove responsibility from sex is not a guaranteed “right”, but, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the foundation of our Constitutional Republic.

So for all your appearances of being pro-Constitutional, you’ve completely missed the whole point of it and set yourself in opposition to its core principles!

HYPOCRITE!!! MURDERER!!! Baby Killer!!! People who justify murder under the pretext of law are the worst, because they have no conscience!
I’ve got news for you: Row vs Wade isn’t part of t... (show quote)








You are aware that Roe vs Wade was decided in a SCOTUS that had a 6 Justices appointed by Republicans and Republican appointed Justices have been in the majority for the last 40 years. Seems the Republicans . the ones who favor abortion

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 01:38:09   #
Pennylynn (a regular here)
 
Yea.... Republicans just like John McCain. Just because a person registers, for the purpose of gaining votes, as a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or whatever.... does not make them a 100 percent supporter of their party. Also, when these people were nominated, they were selected on one factor... who could be approved. Many are unable to stand up to the selection... Kavanaugh is the only one I can remember who thumbed his nose at the committee and was seated regardless of his opponents. We would like to see people who do not play the game for election, but rather stay true to their convictions....but, that rarely happens. It is not until they achieve their goal, a seat or official position, do we (US Citizens) find out what they truly believe or think.

at41 wrote:
You are aware that Roe vs Wade was decided in a SCOTUS that had a 6 Justices appointed by Republicans and Republican appointed Justices have been in the majority for the last 40 years. Seems the Republicans . the ones who favor abortion

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 04:32:34   #
TommyRadd (a regular here)
 
kankune wrote:
They let a Muslim senator get sworn in on the Koran, so we really cant expect too much from the lowlifes. If she didnt want to be sworn in on the Bible, she should have been sworn in with her hand on OUR CONSTITUTION!!!


I’m no scholar of Muslim teachings, but doesn’t the Qu’ran allow lying of Muslims to non-believers? Seems to me, if the Qu’ran advocates in any way that it’s teachings supersede those of a Muslim’s host country, then allowing a Muslim to be sworn into office on a Qu’ran would be tantamount to encouraging and empowering a Muslim not to be bound to upholding our Constitution where it conflicted with their mission of Muslim expansion of sharia law. Can anyone say conflict of interest?

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx

As a Christian, I readily and heartily admit the Bible says “We must obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:29

But it also says, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake” 1 Peter 2:13.

I realize this superficially appears to be a contradiction, but in context it is not. In Acts, they were being told not to preach in Jesus’ name. There was no such ordinance, it was just jealous religious leaders whose false form of religion was being exposed by the light and truth of the gospel. Their command to the apostles to desist was an overreach by the leaders, much like libs try to deny our religious liberties in the practice of the Christian faith. Furthermore, the gist of the gospel’s commandments are to love:

“8Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.” Romans 13:8-10

The point being, what the Bible is saying and commanding is that, if there are unjust laws or rules of man, Christians must hold themselves to a higher standard, that of loving their neighbor as themselves.

What American would advocate “obeying” an unjust law if it meant doing or justifying harm to someone else?

How does swearing on a Qu’ran compare?

Wouldn’t “swearing in” on a Qu’ran, then, actually be tantamount to neutralizing the very purpose of the ceremony?

Seems to me, Naïveté is not a good excuse to allow Trojan Horses into our country and government.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 04:44:19   #
TommyRadd (a regular here)
 
at41 wrote:
You are aware that Roe vs Wade was decided in a SCOTUS that had a 6 Justices appointed by Republicans and Republican appointed Justices have been in the majority for the last 40 years. Seems the Republicans . the ones who favor abortion


Ever hear of the term “RINO”?

What is the Democrat’s term and attitude toward those in their “party” who only support Democrat policies with lip service?

Have you ever heard a Republican say there are no bad Republicans?

What was your point, then?

BTW, I’m not a Republican.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 09:58:34   #
jSmitty45 (a regular here)
 
kankune wrote:
They let a Muslim senator get sworn in on the Koran, so we really cant expect too much from the lowlifes. If she didnt want to be sworn in on the Bible, she should have been sworn in with her hand on OUR CONSTITUTION!!!


Yeah, they need to throw her out!

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 10:22:19   #
slatten49 (a regular here)
 
kankune wrote:
They let a Muslim senator get sworn in on the Koran, so we really cant expect too much from the lowlifes. If she didnt want to be sworn in on the Bible, she should have been sworn in with her hand on OUR CONSTITUTION!!!

Swearing on the Bible is a custom with a lot of informal pressure attached to it, but it is not a legal requirement of office. If it were a legal requirement, that would violate the No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution. That clause was deliberately put in the Constitution, because the Founding Fathers were opposed to the United States passing any laws that resembled the British Test Acts, which imposed penalties on Roman Catholics and nonconformist Protestants.

Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the House of Representatives, took his oath of office on a copy of the Qur'an that had previously been owned by Thomas Jefferson. John Brennan, past director of the Central Intelligence Agency, took his oath office by placing his left hand on an original draft of the Constitution, not the Bible. Similarly, Kyrsten Sinema, a Congresswoman from Arizona and the sole member of Congress who declares herself "religiously unaffiliated," swore her oath of office on the Constitution, just as CIA Director Brennan did.

BTW, Kankune, could you us know what Muslim U.S. Senator was alleged to have swore in on the Koran? I am aware of three Muslim members in the U.S. House of Representatives...two women and one male.

For a breakdown of our congressional representatives religious affiliations...

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-congress-religion-20190106-story.html

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 11:34:25   #
teabag09 (a regular here)
 
You do realize the implication of the LEFT HAND on the Constitution? Mike
slatten49 wrote:
Swearing on the Bible is a custom with a lot of informal pressure attached to it, but it is not a legal requirement of office. If it were a legal requirement, that would violate the No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution. That clause was deliberately put in the Constitution, because the Founding Fathers were opposed to the United States passing any laws that resembled the British Test Acts, which imposed penalties on Roman Catholics and nonconformist Protestants.

Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the House of Representatives, took his oath of office on a copy of the Qur'an that had previously been owned by Thomas Jefferson. John Brennan, past director of the Central Intelligence Agency, took his oath office by placing his left hand on an original draft of the Constitution, not the Bible. Similarly, Kyrsten Sinema, a Congresswoman from Arizona and the sole member of Congress who declares herself "religiously unaffiliated," swore her oath of office on the Constitution, just as CIA Director Brennan did.

BTW, Kankune, could you us know what Muslim U.S. Senator was alleged to have swore in on the Koran? I am aware of three Muslim members in the U.S. House of Representatives...two women and one male.

For a breakdown of our congressional representatives religious affiliations...

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-congress-religion-20190106-story.html
Swearing on the Bible is a custom with a lot of in... (show quote)

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 11:40:18   #
slatten49 (a regular here)
 
teabag09 wrote:
You do realize the implication of the LEFT HAND on the Constitution? Mike

Oaths are traditionally sworn to with the right hand raised. That leaves the left hand for other use.

What is the implication of all congresspersons likely to have taken the oath of office with their left hands on the Bible, Constitution or Koran/Qu'ran

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 12:10:50   #
Iamdjchrys
 
Lonewolf wrote:
Taking a whole 8 minutes of prime time to spread more fake news and cooked border numbers all of which the American people have fact checked and found him lying about!
2 years over 8000 lies and counting who could believe anything he says!
On the bright side, they took his mike before he could fully explain to the American people that Afganistan invaded Russia.
and no matter what our intelligence says the Saudi crown prince is innocent!
Just as he sided with Putin in Helsinki



| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 12:15:21   #
Iamdjchrys
 
TommyRadd wrote:
I’m no scholar of Muslim teachings, but doesn’t the Qu’ran allow lying of Muslims to non-believers? Seems to me, if the Qu’ran advocates in any way that it’s teachings supersede those of a Muslim’s host country, then allowing a Muslim to be sworn into office on a Qu’ran would be tantamount to encouraging and empowering a Muslim not to be bound to upholding our Constitution where it conflicted with their mission of Muslim expansion of sharia law. Can anyone say conflict of interest?

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx

As a Christian, I readily and heartily admit the Bible says “We must obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:29

But it also says, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake” 1 Peter 2:13.

I realize this superficially appears to be a contradiction, but in context it is not. In Acts, they were being told not to preach in Jesus’ name. There was no such ordinance, it was just jealous religious leaders whose false form of religion was being exposed by the light and truth of the gospel. Their command to the apostles to desist was an overreach by the leaders, much like libs try to deny our religious liberties in the practice of the Christian faith. Furthermore, the gist of the gospel’s commandments are to love:

“8Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.” Romans 13:8-10

The point being, what the Bible is saying and commanding is that, if there are unjust laws or rules of man, Christians must hold themselves to a higher standard, that of loving their neighbor as themselves.

What American would advocate “obeying” an unjust law if it meant doing or justifying harm to someone else?

How does swearing on a Qu’ran compare?

Wouldn’t “swearing in” on a Qu’ran, then, actually be tantamount to neutralizing the very purpose of the ceremony?

Seems to me, Naïveté is not a good excuse to allow Trojan Horses into our country and government.
I’m no scholar of Muslim teachings, but doesn’t th... (show quote)


Circular logic. And FYI, the Bible is not the be-all and end-all of the human condition. It is no more, or less, credible than the Qu'ran.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 12:19:17   #
Iamdjchrys
 
TommyRadd wrote:
Ever hear of the term “RINO”?

What is the Democrat’s term and attitude toward those in their “party” who only support Democrat policies with lip service?

Have you ever heard a Republican say there are no bad Republicans?

What was your point, then?

BTW, I’m not a Republican.

,
SCOTUS is not a political organization. Regardless of their, or their appointor's, political affiliation, they take an oath to make their decisions based on the Constitution. Interestingly enough, so do House members, Senators and <gasp> the President.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 12:20:19   #
byronglimish (a regular here)
 
Iamdjchrys wrote:
Circular logic. And FYI, the Bible is not the be-all and end-all of the human condition. It is no more, or less, credible than the Qu'ran.


You are an atheist?

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 12:29:19   #
boofhead
 
at41 wrote:
You are aware that Roe vs Wade was decided in a SCOTUS that had a 6 Justices appointed by Republicans and Republican appointed Justices have been in the majority for the last 40 years. Seems the Republicans . the ones who favor abortion


The decision aligned all the States to the same laws. The first trimester was not as tightly constrained as the second two, but it was still not meant to allow abortion for convenience. A women desiring an abortion even in the first trimester had to have the consent of a doctor that it was medially necessary. That is patently not being done with the majority of abortions being done without a medical reason. Therefore illegally.

On Jan. 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down their ruling, holding that a woman's right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman a right to abortion during the entirety of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters.

In the first trimester, the state (that is, any government) could treat abortion only as a medical decision, leaving medical judgment to the woman's physician.

In the second trimester (before viability), the state's interest was seen as legitimate when it was protecting the health of the mother.

After the viability of the fetus (the likely ability of the fetus to survive outside of and separated from the uterus), the potential of human life could be considered as a legitimate state interest. The state could choose to "regulate, or even proscribe abortion" as long as the life and health of the mother was protected.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 12:39:07   #
Lonewolf (a regular here)
 
I'll tell you what you should is fact ck your post Mueller delivered eveidence that Russia could use to prosecute a case!
Are you aware we buy uranium from Russia and in fact import most of our uranium!



carlajones wrote:
Will you once and for all please explain the evidence Trump Colluded with Russians? FBI Comey admitted there's not a law, crime against colluding. What did you say to America when Mueller delivered AMERICAN Uranium to Russia for Clinton?

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 12:43:02   #
byronglimish (a regular here)
 
Lonewolf wrote:
I'll tell you what you should is fact ck your post Mueller delivered eveidence that Russia could use to prosecute a case!
Are you aware we buy uranium from Russia and in fact import most of our uranium!


Then why doesn't it concern you that the Obama administration's brokering the Uranium One Deal was bad dealing.

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.