Conservative judges my ass... **nononono*
We were "assured" by the Trumplican Populists that Trump would ONLY nominate Conservatives to the bench.
Now watch them do logic-defying pretzel twists to explain to us simpletons how "genius" this nomination is and how it cements Trump's Conservative 'bona-fides'.
We were "assured" by the Trumplican Populists that Trump would ONLY nominate Conservatives to the bench.
Now watch them do logic-defying pretzel twists to explain to us simpletons how "genius" this nomination is and how it cements Trump's Conservative 'bona-fides'.
Im rapidly coming to the conclusion that my instincts regardin Trump were right on. Still hoping that's not true but the case is being made every day.
Im rapidly coming to the conclusion that my instincts regardin Trump were right on. Still hoping that's not true but the case is being made every day.
I would also lay odds that your instincts have been absolutely correct from the get go.
I would also lay odds that your instincts have been absolutely correct from the get go.
We were "assured" by the Trumplican Populists that Trump would ONLY nominate Conservatives to the bench.
Now watch them do logic-defying pretzel twists to explain to us simpletons how "genius" this nomination is and how it cements Trump's Conservative 'bona-fides'.
Another option would be Fox & Friends does a segment on this Guy tomorrow morning and Viola, policy shift on the 9th circus appointment.
Ah ... but not just any 'bench'...the SCOTUS bench. Every other bench is fair game.
I'll agree with @roamer_1 ..."conservatives my ass".
We were "assured" by the Trumplican Populists that Trump would ONLY nominate Conservatives to the bench.
And, please, if you answer, do so without dragging the Bible into your tantrum....
Even with the depth and scope of the corruption in our highest levels of government Trump supporters are *still* your number one enemy.
Is there no end to your bitterness?
Will you stop at nothing, including the dissolution of our rule of law, to settle your loss in the primaries?
And, please, if you answer, do so without dragging the Bible into your tantrum; to do so would be an act of extreme disrespect.
:2popcorn:
You Trump fanatics made it so. You declared us an enemy of the country for our refusal to support Trump, your fellow fanatics even went so far as to threaten death for refusing to vote for him.
I'm living up to the charges sweetie. Your fellow nut jobs made a big ass mistake deciding to make Principled Conservatives your enemy.
You haven't even begun to see it yet toots.
As if I, myself had such power merely if I jumped on your bandwagon. No thanks. Funny though that you equate the 'dissolution of the rule of law' with pointing out the promises you people insisted that Trump was going to live up to. Such as appointing ONLY Conservative justices to the bench. He lied. You bought it. You sold the lie.
Yet we warned you this is what he would do, and we were attacked for that back when.
Exactly the kind of condescension I have come to expect of not only Godless Leftists, but Trumplicans like you as well.
Obviously the 'bitterness' being displayed is from those of you who cannot stand any principles that do not fawn all over Trump and any mention of biblical morality or God and the bible that is not singing hosannas to your guy in the White House.
Grow up, life is hard.
I'll have to admit that attempting to cover for reneged promises and lies while spinning every unflattering truth into some kind of dimensional chess genius for Trump has to be quite the endeavor for you people.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Democrat, asked Mr. Bennett why he backed legalizing same-sex marriage in Hawaii even before the U.S. Supreme Court had established a nationwide right.
“As a private citizen, I felt it was appropriate for my voice to be heard,†Mr. Bennett said.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat who has found few of Mr. Trump’s appeals court nominees palatable, raved over Mr. Bennett. She praised him for saying judges sometimes should look beyond legal precedent to reach their rulings.
Mark Jeremy Bennett (born February 24, 1953) is a Honolulu, Hawaii attorney who served as Attorney General of Hawaii from 2003 to 2010 in the two-term administration of Republican Governor Linda Lingle. He is the first attorney general appointed by a Republican governor since the governorship of William F. Quinn,
My guess is that they will come up with a new definition of "conservative" to fit Trump' actions (or inactions).
They did that the other day when I was told Trump's use of the term, "broke in " has a completely different definition from the term, "break in." *****rollingeyes*****
Mark Jeremy Bennett is also a liberal who believes that law should be written by judges - not legislators.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Democrat, asked Mr. Bennett why he backed legalizing same-sex marriage in Hawaii even before the U.S. Supreme Court had established a nationwide right.
“As a private citizen, I felt it was appropriate for my voice to be heard,†Mr. Bennett said.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat who has found few of Mr. Trump’s appeals court nominees palatable, raved over Mr. Bennett. She praised him for saying judges sometimes should look beyond legal precedent to reach their rulings.
@Jazzhead
This to me is the kiss of death:
Without exception, Judges should always rule based upon the law as written, and not upon what they wish the law said. This guy is a judicial-fiat-loving liberal douchebag.
His opinion supportive of gay marriage is hardly evidence that he's a "judicial-fiat-loving liberal douchebag".
Well we say he is.
C'mon, man.
Just because someone has a political view as a private citizen that you disagree with doesn't mean he'll be an activist judge. And sometimes activist judges are applauded by the right - see, e.g., Scalia and his decision in Heller.
His opinion supportive of gay marriage is hardly evidence that he's a "judicial-fiat-loving liberal douchebag". Lots of conservatives I know support the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection.
Why do you give a damn whether your neighbors can marry? Mind your own business. Oh - I forgot - you're the sort of bedroom-lurking Christian who can never mind his own business.
And, please, if you answer, do so without dragging the Bible into your tantrum; to do so would be an act of extreme disrespect.
How about a joke instead... So.. Two Corinthians walk into a bar...
His opinion supportive of gay marriage is hardly evidence that he's a "judicial-fiat-loving liberal douchebag". Lots of conservatives I know support the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection.
Lots of conservatives I know support the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection.
Trump has nominated over 100 federal judges - over 30 have been confirmed. I don't like this one either because of his expansive view of the 14th Amendment, and overly-restrictive view of the Second.
But all the caterwauling about how this proves all the skeptics right on judicial nominations is ridiculous. Would you rather have someone who nominated 100 good ones and one stinker, or the 100 stinkers and 1 good one we might have gotten from Hillary.
The Dems are dragging their feet as hard as possible, yet amazingly, Trump actually set a record for the number of federal judges confirmed in his first year. People who argue that these positions should all have been filled within a month of him taking office are simply revealing their own ignorance of the nomination and confirmation process. The Senate won't go any faster than it is.
http://time.com/5066679/donald-trump-federal-judges-record/ (http://time.com/5066679/donald-trump-federal-judges-record/)
I still don't like this nominee, but he is so out of character compared to the other nominees that I wonder if it is part of a deal to ram through some other nominations, either judicial or otherwise.
Lots of conservatives I know support the Equal Protection Clause as well -- given that it is in the 14th Amendment. But I don't know many judicial conservatives who thought that clause applied to gay marriage.
It doesn't apply to gay "marriage" anymore than it applies to Obamacare.
You're repeated and purposeful misinterpretations of the Constitution get tiresome sometimes.
Apparently, the 14th amendment means anything anybody wants to mean...
C'mon, man.
Just because someone has a political view as a private citizen that you disagree with doesn't mean he'll be an activist judge. And sometimes activist judges are applauded by the right - see, e.g., Scalia and his decision in Heller.
His opinion supportive of gay marriage is hardly evidence that he's a "judicial-fiat-loving liberal douchebag". Lots of conservatives I know support the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection.
Additionally, Bennett has also been a generous donor to the Republican Party of Hawaii, donating almost $5000 over the years, including $400 in October 2017, after his name had been proposed for a federal judgeship but before the formal vetting process had begun.[14] Bennett has also donated to support Lingle, former U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte and Hawaii State Legislator Cynthia Thielen, all Republicans.[15] On the flip side, Bennett financially supported Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (a Democrat) in her primary challenge to Schatz in 2014.[16]
Good grief, @Jazzhead . Did you even read what I posted? Nowhere did I mention his political view. Nowhere.
I have a problem with ANYONE who interjects their personal viewpoint, and even worse, personal feelings, in any judicial ruling at the expense of written law. In other words, I detest ANYONE who legislates from the bench.
I clearly understand that you hold the opposite view - that you applaud judges who use the power of the bench to write 'laws' that are contrary to the Constitution, yet promote your particular viewpoint. But do not for a minute assume that I think the same way as you. I do not. I will always be the one siding with the Constitution of the United States of America here while you argue that the means are somehow justified by the ends.
I don't even know what his opinion of same-sex marriage is. But the fact that you describe it as 'gay' marriage instead of 'same-sex' marriage proves that you are an enemy of the very 'equal protection' that you pretend to champion. Marriage laws in states like California held zero regard for preference. Thus, equal protection applied. But now that 'preference' has been added to the equation, equal protection no longer applies. Because my particular preference is denied while the preference of a select class is allowed. And not by law either. Nor by the Constitution. It is allowed purely on the fiat of black-robed tyrants.
Personally, I believe that the members of a society should all have a voice in setting the rules that mold and shape a society. Yet clearly you do not. And THAT is what separates you from me. Not your view on same-sex marriage. Not your view on gun ownership. But your utter contempt for allowing society to come together and choose its own laws.
Bravo!
Agreed! @Hoodat that was a top-notch takedown. Top notch!
Good grief, @Jazzhead . Did you even read what I posted? Nowhere did I mention his political view. Nowhere.
I have a problem with ANYONE who interjects their personal viewpoint, and even worse, personal feelings, in any judicial ruling at the expense of written law. In other words, I detest ANYONE who legislates from the bench.
I clearly understand that you hold the opposite view - that you applaud judges who use the power of the bench to write 'laws' that are contrary to the Constitution, yet promote your particular viewpoint.
But do not for a minute assume that I think the same way as you. I do not. I will always be the one siding with the Constitution of the United States of America here while you argue that the means are somehow justified by the ends.
I don't even know what his opinion of same-sex marriage is.
But the fact that you describe it as 'gay' marriage instead of 'same-sex' marriage proves that you are an enemy of the very 'equal protection' that you pretend to champion. Marriage laws in states like California held zero regard for preference. Thus, equal protection applied. But now that 'preference' has been added to the equation, equal protection no longer applies. Because my particular preference is denied while the preference of a select class is allowed. And not by law either. Nor by the Constitution. It is allowed purely on the fiat of black-robed tyrants.
Personally, I believe that the members of a society should all have a voice in setting the rules that mold and shape a society. Yet clearly you do not. And THAT is what separates you from me. Not your view on same-sex marriage. Not your view on gun ownership. But your utter contempt for allowing society to come together and choose its own laws.
We were "assured" by the Trumplican Populists that Trump would ONLY nominate Conservatives to the bench.
Nice counter.
People forget most of their fellow Americans who vote D are not necessarily ideological Leftists, but liberals who disagree on somethings and maybe agree on others. America and the constitution belong just as much to our left leaning neighbors as it does to us.
@aligncare I can't thank you enough for saying this.
888heartkitty
Of course you did. You cited his view supporting same sex marriage. That is a political position.
And cut me a break - I know darn well you have no problem with judges who "legislate from the bench" if they're "legislating" stuff you support.
Oh, bullspit. The judges I applaud are those that fairly apply the law to the facts.
Judges didn't create same sex marriage. The states freely chose to provide valuable benefits and protections to the contract of civil marriage.
The Constitution says what it says, and its protections aren't limited just to folks like yourself.
Oh, you bore me with your virtue signaling. The Constitution supports my position
. . . and rejects your demand to impose your religious values.
You don't "side with the Constitution". The Constitution demands that the law afford EVERYONE its equal protection.
Well, you quoted some politician who thinks he supports same sex marriage. Don't debate dishonestly.
Your particular preference isn't denied.
What pisses you off is that the government can't impose your religious values on others.
Separation of church and state, bub.
Equal protection of the law, sir.
It's all there in the Constitution.
What can't my neighbors marry in your special world?
And Democrat voters were assured by Democrats that he would do the same thing if he won. Truth is nobody knows what the hell he will do next. Sometimes he surprises the hell out of me and I'm applauding loudly. Other times like this and I ask myself how the hell did we end up with him?
Here is my statement again:Without exception, Judges should always rule based upon the law as written, and not upon what they wish the law said. This guy is a judicial-fiat-loving liberal douchebag.
Nowhere in any of that did I cite his view supporting same-sex marriage. Nowhere. Your claim is false.
Absolutely positively untrue. I have stressed this exact point countless times - Roe being a prime example. The court would have been just as wrong to prohibit states from legalizing abortion nationwide based solely upon fiat just as they were wrong to prohibit states from banning it. The ends do not justify the means. Ever. Again, it is something that separates you from me. Your claim is patently false.
You have an extensive posting history that proves otherwise.
My state didn't. Neither did California, or Virginia, or Kansas, or Utah, or North Dakota. In fact, a vast majority of the States set established laws on marriage that are completely impartial to sexual preference. Yet it was a judge that overruled what the vast majority of States had already decided. Again, your claim is patently false.
The Constitution says that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. This means that States get to decide how to sanction marriage, and that people can decide their own relationships. Yet you believe that the marriage law of one State should be imposed on the rest, as long as you favor that law. But the reverse is never true in that if you don't favor the law of a particular State, then that law should not be imposed on anyone else. It is the exact opposite of equal protection, and is in itself a demonstration of contempt on the very Constitution you pretend to support.
Really? Then why is it that every single time we have this conversation, you are unable to cite a single thing in the Constitution that supports your viewpoint? Heck, I would even be willing to concede the 'Equal protection' argument if you indeed supported equal protection. But you don't support it at all.
Whoa, hold the phone! Who said anything about religion? I certainly didn't bring it up. So why did you? Religion has nothing to do with the tyranny of judicial fiat. And every time you bring it up, it shows that you don't have a legal leg to stand on.
I ALWAYS side with the Constitution. I ALWAYS support equal protection. It is you that does not. Because it is YOU who supports judges who inject 'preference' into the equation where no such preference previously existed. And by doing so, you create a protected class while denying others their own preference. It is an egregious violation of equal protection.
Hearsay. I can quote many politicians who think that Donald Trump is a Conservative. That doesn't make him a Conservative. Besides, Bennett's opinion on same-sex marriage has nothing to do with anything I said. He could be in favor of beastiality, or vehemently oppose cohabitation, or he could be a card-carrying member of the KKK like Democrat appointee Hugo Black. But all that matters to me is whether or not he follows the Constitution of the United States of America or not. Which should explain to you why I don't give a rats ass about whether two people of the same gender get married to each other or not, regardless of sexual preference. And your contempt for the Constitution explains why each and every time you make this an argument about gay marriage and your religious bigotry.
My particular preference is to be married to identical twins. And that preference certainly is denied. This has been pointed out to you multiple times. Yet you refuse to listen to what other say, instead receding into the bigotry of your own closed mind.
I don't want government imposing religious views on anyone. Not that that has anything at all to do with this conversation.
'Separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution, not that that has anything at all to do with the people of California choosing their own marriage laws.
We had equal protection before. We no longer have it now that 'preference' has been added to the equation.
The fact that it actually is in the Constitution proves that you are an enemy of the Constitution. You demand that Vermont marriage law be imposed upon Californians, but balk at having California marriage law imposed upon Vermont. Nothing equal about that. You pick a side, and then applaud when your side is imposed against the will of others. There is a name for it. Tyranny.
Your neighbors can do whatever they please. No one is stopping them from getting married. Just don't demand the rest of the state of Pennsylvania to sanction it without a vote.
That was absolutely and positively a right proper disembowelment. I love how you tossed his entrails of colon-residing argument up in the air and diced them before they hit the floor.
QuoteEven with the depth and scope of the corruption in our highest levels of government Trump supporters are *still* your number one enemy.
@Right_in_Virginia @INVAR
Of course. Remember,these are people that worshiped at the Altar of Bush. They are Party People to the core.
QuoteI'm living up to the charges sweetie. Your fellow nut jobs made a big ass mistake deciding to make Principled Conservatives your enemy.
@INVAR
Ok,so how does that affect you?QuoteExactly the kind of condescension I have come to expect of not only Godless Leftists, but Trumplicans like you as well.
Yah really miss the days of Homo Jorge being in the WH,don't you? After all,didn't Hay-Zues! command you to "Love your fellow man!"?QuoteObviously the 'bitterness' being displayed is from those of you who cannot stand any principles that do not fawn all over Trump and any mention of biblical morality or God and the bible that is not singing hosannas to your guy in the White House.
Naw,it's mostly because you are all whiny little hypocritical bitches.
All I'm saying is let's not go off half-cocked because of some horror headline that Dems have said positive things about a guy.
Mark Jeremy Bennett is also a liberal who believes that law should be written by judges - not legislators.
And again - we were assured and promised that Trump would be nominating Originalists and Constitutionalists to the Bench, and that was reason No. 1 why we were told to support and vote for the guy.
Lots of conservatives I know support the Equal Protection Clause as well -- given that it is in the 14th Amendment. But I don't know many judicial conservatives who thought that clause applied to gay marriage.
I notice he forms those misinterpretations in order to cast social conservatives in a bad light.
And Democrat voters were assured by Democrats that he would do the same thing if he won. Truth is nobody knows what the hell he will do next. Sometimes he surprises the hell out of me and I'm applauding loudly. Other times like this and I ask myself how the hell did we end up with him?
Best post ever! However he hardly ever follows through with the things he says he is going to do. You could be clapping in applause and he will change mid clap. I was ready to give him praise when he said he wouldn't sign the spending bill and then he did.
@Cyber Liberty
It would be tough to do a better job of that than you do yourselves,and you are NOT "social conservatives". You are "social fascists" that hate the idea of individuals having the RIGHT to make up their own minds about how to live their personal lives. Two prominent political leaders that were in full agreement with you were named Hitler and Stalin.
@Cyber Liberty
It would be tough to do a better job of that than you do yourselves,and you are NOT "social conservatives". You are "social fascists" that hate the idea of individuals having the RIGHT to make up their own minds about how to live their personal lives. Two prominent political leaders that were in full agreement with you were named Hitler and Stalin.
Here is my statement again:Without exception, Judges should always rule based upon the law as written, and not upon what they wish the law said. This guy is a judicial-fiat-loving liberal douchebag.
Nowhere in any of that did I cite his view supporting same-sex marriage. Nowhere. Your claim is false.
Absolutely positively untrue. I have stressed this exact point countless times - Roe being a prime example. The court would have been just as wrong to prohibit states from legalizing abortion nationwide based solely upon fiat just as they were wrong to prohibit states from banning it. The ends do not justify the means. Ever. Again, it is something that separates you from me. Your claim is patently false.
You have an extensive posting history that proves otherwise.
My state didn't. Neither did California, or Virginia, or Kansas, or Utah, or North Dakota. In fact, a vast majority of the States set established laws on marriage that are completely impartial to sexual preference. Yet it was a judge that overruled what the vast majority of States had already decided. Again, your claim is patently false.
The Constitution says that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. This means that States get to decide how to sanction marriage, and that people can decide their own relationships. Yet you believe that the marriage law of one State should be imposed on the rest, as long as you favor that law. But the reverse is never true in that if you don't favor the law of a particular State, then that law should not be imposed on anyone else. It is the exact opposite of equal protection, and is in itself a demonstration of contempt on the very Constitution you pretend to support.
Really? Then why is it that every single time we have this conversation, you are unable to cite a single thing in the Constitution that supports your viewpoint? Heck, I would even be willing to concede the 'Equal protection' argument if you indeed supported equal protection. But you don't support it at all.
Whoa, hold the phone! Who said anything about religion? I certainly didn't bring it up. So why did you? Religion has nothing to do with the tyranny of judicial fiat. And every time you bring it up, it shows that you don't have a legal leg to stand on.
I ALWAYS side with the Constitution. I ALWAYS support equal protection. It is you that does not. Because it is YOU who supports judges who inject 'preference' into the equation where no such preference previously existed. And by doing so, you create a protected class while denying others their own preference. It is an egregious violation of equal protection.
Hearsay. I can quote many politicians who think that Donald Trump is a Conservative. That doesn't make him a Conservative. Besides, Bennett's opinion on same-sex marriage has nothing to do with anything I said. He could be in favor of beastiality, or vehemently oppose cohabitation, or he could be a card-carrying member of the KKK like Democrat appointee Hugo Black. But all that matters to me is whether or not he follows the Constitution of the United States of America or not. Which should explain to you why I don't give a rats ass about whether two people of the same gender get married to each other or not, regardless of sexual preference. And your contempt for the Constitution explains why each and every time you make this an argument about gay marriage and your religious bigotry.
My particular preference is to be married to identical twins. And that preference certainly is denied. This has been pointed out to you multiple times. Yet you refuse to listen to what other say, instead receding into the bigotry of your own closed mind.
I don't want government imposing religious views on anyone. Not that that has anything at all to do with this conversation.
'Separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution, not that that has anything at all to do with the people of California choosing their own marriage laws.
We had equal protection before. We no longer have it now that 'preference' has been added to the equation.
The fact that it actually is in the Constitution proves that you are an enemy of the Constitution. You demand that Vermont marriage law be imposed upon Californians, but balk at having California marriage law imposed upon Vermont. Nothing equal about that. You pick a side, and then applaud when your side is imposed against the will of others. There is a name for it. Tyranny.
Your neighbors can do whatever they please. No one is stopping them from getting married. Just don't demand the rest of the state of Pennsylvania to sanction it without a vote.
Ok... now that ^ ^ is about as asinine a statement/comment as I've seen, thus far, made on this forum.
Congrats! You're now in the top three.
Who is this "you" to whom you refer, Pete? Do I look like I have a mouse in my pocket?
Of course. Remember,these are people that worshiped at the Altar of Bush. They are Party People to the core.
Not only a lie,a DAMNED lie!
There were two valid reasons to support Trump.
1: He's not Hillary
2: He's not one of the alleged Republican "usual suspects".
No doubt "2:" is what is keeping you pissed off. You are a cult member,and no one from your cult won. This hurts and offends you. We get it,we just don't care.
@Cyber Liberty
To everyone that claims they are conservatives in the American sense of the word,and then want to demand THEY have the right to use the force of law to dictate to others how they can and can not live. If you want to live in some sort of Holy Land,take your asses to Israel,Mecca,or somewhere else. We have freedom OF religion in this country as well as freedom FROM religion.
Deal with it!
I'm not in any camp, I am my own person, just like you are. I do recognize there are folks who identify with others all over the spectrum, and I am capable of relating to just about everybody here without belonging to any "camp." I don't claim to be anything but some poster on an internet forum, and speak for nobody but myself. It surprises me you would know me all these years and not get that I make no demands on anybody's life choices. If you want to make generalizations about socons, fiscons or little green men, please do so without inferring I'm somehow part of said group simply because I enunciate something you don't like.
You deal. I'm fine with who I am.QuoteNope. We were told specifically that Judicial nominations were the reason we had to vote for Trump - because only HE was going to nominate bona-fide Conservatives.
BTW,THAT is a lie if you are addressing me. I never ONCE claimed that Trump was a bona-fided anything. Nor did I claim he would ONLY nominate conservative justices. I DID claim he was the MOST LIKELY to nominate conservative justices,but I am an adult living in an adult world,and I understand that in politics you have to make compromises to get things done.
And I stand by everything I said.
@Cyber Liberty
No,YOU deal with it. I responded to you specifically because you had asked me a question. I was NOT naming your or anyone else as a member of that group. I figure you all know who you are and don't need me to point it out. IF you are a member of that group,wear it. If you are not a member of that group,WHY take it personal?
@XenaLee
It's not MY fault you can't stand the truth.
It's a ridiculous game you are playing. I don't "do" groups.
I think I'll leave you to it and move on to some other topic where hopefully you can make your points without making goofy assignments and assumptions. Go find another strawman, I have better things to do with my time.
@Hoodat
....
Too many people confuse liberalism with fascism. Most come from the left.
Somebody must have pissed in his wheaties this am...lolol.
The problem is (apparently) ...
you wouldn't know or recognize the truth if it jumped up and sat on your face.
Just sayin...
As does fascism.
@XenaLee
Says a woman who believes a Holy Spook will come back to life and lead her and all the other cult followers back to an eternity of Heaven,while casting non-believers into a burning pit for all of eternity.
Are there any other Fairy Tales you believe?
And bone headed comments like this is why religious discussions are frowned upon here.
@XenaLee
Says a woman who believes a Holy Spook will come back to life and lead her and all the other cult followers back to an eternity of Heaven,while casting non-believers into a burning pit for all of eternity.
Are there any other Fairy Tales you believe?
To everyone that claims they are conservatives in the American sense of the word,and then want to demand THEY have the right to use the force of law to dictate to others how they can and can not live.a few posts back!
@txradioguy
Religious discussions SHOULD be frowned on here and every other political site unless there is a section of the site reserved for religious discussion. Start a dedicated board for religion and religious issues,and I promise to avoid it like the plague unless pinged to it.
Will you and the other True Believers promise to keep all your religious rants there?
@XenaLee
Says a woman who believes a Holy Spook will come back to life and lead her and all the other cult followers back to an eternity of Heaven,while casting non-believers into a burning pit for all of eternity.
Are there any other Fairy Tales you believe?
@XenaLee
Says a woman who believes a Holy Spook will come back to life and lead her and all the other cult followers back to an eternity of Heaven,while casting non-believers into a burning pit for all of eternity.
Are there any other Fairy Tales you believe?
That was absolutely and positively a right proper disembowelment. I love how you tossed his entrails of colon-residing argument up in the air and diced them before they hit the floor.
@Maj. Bill Martin
The Bible Thumpers HATE the idea of homo marriage because many of them seem to be jealous of people having a choice they HAVE,but are afraid to take because their kind and loving God will condemn them to burn in a pit of fire for all eternity.
MUCH better if everyone wears red and marches in a straight line.
It has nothing to do with whether gay marriage is a good idea, or not. It has to do with whether the Constitution compels state or federal recognition of gay marriages. Far too many people assume that if something is "good", then that's enough reason to find that the Constitution compels it.
Democrats praise Trump nominee for 9th Circuit
Republicans raise critical questions on his gun rights, Citizens United views
By Alex Swoyer - The Washington Times - Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Reversing the usual script, Democrats praised one of President Trump’s federal appeals court nominees Wednesday while Republicans brought the tough questions for Mark Jeremy Bennett over his defense of gun control laws and free speech rights.
Mr. Bennett, a former Hawaii attorney general now nominated to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, had backed a limited interpretation of Second Amendment rights that was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, also questioned Mr. Bennett over opposition to Citizens United, the Supreme Court case that overturned campaign finance restrictions and helped pave the way for the current system.
<..snip..>
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/11/democrats-praise-trumps-judicial-nominee-9th-circu/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/11/democrats-praise-trumps-judicial-nominee-9th-circu/)
Do NOT appoint anyone from Hawaii to ANYTHING. The entire political Hierarchy here is both dumb and corrupt. They still can't figure out who to blame for a fake missile alert.
That's one hell of a post coming from a guy who just said a few posts back!
I don't talk a lot of religion here...in fact what I believe and don't believe I keep to myself...so as @Cyber Liberty said earlier...quit trying to put me in a group I don't belong in.
The only one here that consistently and continually goes on a "religious rant" is you Pete.
Perhaps you should do some self reflection and promise to keep YOUR religious beliefs contained elsewhere and not on TBR.
QuoteComplaining about religious intolerance earlier, and insulting religion here, showing no tolerance?
I have zero tolerance for all accepted forms of insanity.QuoteWe'd have more to loathe from someone like you than we ever would someone like @XenaLee.
That's because YOU are a cult member yourselfQuoteI can't take someone like you seriously.
Yada,yada,yada.QuoteYou claim to want freedom, except where religion is concerned.
Blind as a bat,ain't ya? YOU and people like you,want the FREEDOM to try to shove your insanity down my throat by using the power of the state to enforce your superstitions, and have the stones to imply *I* a hypocrite?
Ah! So.... on top of and in addition to having outted yourself as being utterly (and udderly) clueless re: the truth in politics...
you now freely out yourself as a Godless heathen and as udderly clueless re: the truth in God, the Father.
Heckuva job, Petey!!!
You have exceeded my expectations this morning. Bigly.
@XenaLee
That just highlights how clueless you are. I am PROUD of being a "Gawdless Heathen".
@XenaLee
That just highlights how clueless you are. I am PROUD of being a "Gawdless Heathen".