You'll note well that I wouldn't be here, associating with my fellow right wingers if I too strongly disagreed with them. Usually it's a semantic argument that I'm having with their justification for various positions. I'd sooner blame their utter frustration with post-modernism than any particular bent on infringing on others' rights. Like them, I recognize the legal authority of various American officialdom, but I reserve the right to withhold my approval. We hold certain truths to be self-evident. Mother nature can teach us much more about marriage than a supreme court justice. The same-sexers want something from us that we don't want to give. They don't need it, it's not listed in the bill of rights or even covered under the "pursuit of happiness." But still they want it, they crave it.
The question I have for you is more fundamental. Would you rather have justices appointed who know what I'm talking about, or ones who prefer the Roy Moore point of view. The choice is the left's. The more they press, the more religious the right will become. It's a simple physics: for every action, there is a reaction.
Would you rather have justices appointed who know what I'm talking about, or ones who prefer the Roy Moore point of view.
I think I've answered this long ago. I would rather have justices appointed who know what you're talking about than ones who prefer the Roy Moore point of view.
Good night.