Posted on 05/26/2011 8:31:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
NOTICE: FR DOES NOT AND WILL NOT SUPPORT ABORTIONIST, GAY RIGHTS PUSHING BIG GOVERNMENT STATISTS FOR PRESIDENT!!
This message is intended for those posters on FR who seem to have missed my prior statements in this regard and insist on advocating for these bastards.
I'd rather shut the place down than be involved in any effort to install abortionist/gay rights pushing RINOS like Romney or Giuliani into the White House!!
Do NOT push this crap on FR. Take your business elsewhere!! And I don't care how long you've been here!!
I remember the Scuzzyfava affair. Newt helped too.
I know, Manc. I have been debunked on that particular topic.
If he or she uses their presidential pen and sings a bill repealing ObamaCare, that's 100% better than having Obama for 4 more years. There are big stakes in 2012, and if Obama wins, our entire way of life will change for the worse, as well as our entire medical system. So, go ahead and help put Barry back in the White House. I'll vote for anybody with a realistic shot of beating him and his healthcare/pro-union agenda.
No I’m not but will vote for Perot! Yea right! So you get Obama and Rudy! If these are the nominees Whom are you going to vote for? Trump?
All you have are insults and no points to make. And you didn’t respond to my 569. That must be why you’re posting insults to everyone. No debate points.
100% agreement!
It is precisely why states continued to have state religions well after the Constitution was ratified. The colonies were basically established by certain denominations and established what the religion was to be in that particular colony. They did not give that up when they wrote the Constitution. They wrote the Constitution so that the FEDERAL government could never say one particular denomination was the official, national religion and therefore have preference over the others.
It is an example of states having abilities the federal government did not. As the federal government derives its power from the states, that means the federal government may do certain things now on behalf of the states, but can’t force it’s own limitations on powers the states never gave it in the first place.
What happened is over time more and more people moved around the states and emigrated here and not everyone was just living in states where their denomination was the state religion, and this gradually was done away with as the state religious denominations grew less homogenous.
You did not address any of my main points.
Typical.
I reject your premise. Such a Rino may say that, knowing full well there’s no way Congress ever gets them that bill. Or if another conservative justice dies and Barry gets another appointment, they can sign it and they know the SCOTUS will just shoot it down.
I don’t trust Rinos to do anything they say they will do, or do anything that makes conservatives happy. You can keep drinking the kool aid but I’ll pass.
Why are you content to let elitists pick who you can vote for? If the choice is between a fast road to hell or the slow one, I’ll vote for who the Tea Party fields. That won’t be Rudy. That may be Palin, Cain or someone else. But it won’t be a Rudy or a Mittens.
Those two make me cringe. Not just because they are liberal psychos, but they have insane egos.
We need Sarah in here now!!! If we don't get a solid conservative I will support Herman Cain as far as I know he is anti abortion and very conservative.
We need the country club republicans to go off to Never Never Land and never return.
Yup. I remember studying that YEARS ago. LOL
Everson v. Board of Education is the case where SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution to encompass state action in the establishment clause:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion."
You might not like it, but this interpretation of the Constitution is the law of the land. Scotus's interpretation states that the Second Amendment applies to self-defense, even though it is not actually stated in the Constitution. If you asked me does the Constitution provide for the ownership of arms for self defense, I would say yes. If you asked me does the Constitution prevent a state from establishing a religion, I would say yes.
Hear hear!!.....spot on!
I don't think that's true. The Communist Manifesto is readily available online (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61.txt.utf8).... I searched the text and found no reference to homosexuality anywhere.
Can you cite the source? It's not easy to win this battle. It's tougher when our own side doesn't get the facts correct.
Well, we’re not going to get rid of ObamaCare by voting in the statist who effectively authored it and still today brags about his own big government “solution,” RomneyCare. If Romney’s in, I’m OUT!!
I’m not content with elitist picking our candidate I’m just saying what if we get Rudy or Mitt against Obama? Look I’m on the left coast and we out here don’t get to pick anyone they are already decided when I get to vote in the primary... I did not vote for McCain in the primary even though he already had it sewed up! I was stuck voting for him though against Obama but Sarah made it easier to vote for him though!
Except that "civil unions" -- as corporations have defined them -- allows corporations to treat cohabiters the same as "married" employees re: benefits.
Some corporations, once they opened the door to providing benefits for homosexual cohabiters -- including civil union recognition -- then realized they had to cater to heterosexual cohabiters.
Eventually, the cohabiters and homosexuals will take on the country as to how many partners can be placed on the benefits' list.
"Civil unions" is simply homosexual "marriage" - lite -- just calling it a less offensive, less provocative name.
I think we're all supposed to say "Neener neener neener!! That's impossible!! Can't hear you!!"
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.