[The Urban Sombrero]

How is it "defending all abortions" to cite an actual statistic?

"We are not here to advocate abortion. We do not ask this Court to rule that abortion is good or desireable in any particular situation. We are here to advocate that the decision as to whether or not a particular woman will continue to carry or will terminate a pregnancy is a decision that should be made by that individual." - Sarah Weddington, lead prosecuting attorney in Roe v. Wade

My experience is that no woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.

Ultimately, politically I stay out of a woman's womb. Personally, I am pro-life. My friends on the religious Right tell me this is not possible. To them I usually say your understanding of essential liberty is bounded by your personal religious convictions. The Framers did not share this view.

[WideRight05]

You have mentioned belief in God and in The Bible - Jesus didn't say to make that relationship public "except for...." Someone who struggles with sin, I sympathize with that. But supporting it via the vote or through other manners is unacceptable.

But, there are many people who are pro-life and non-Christian. You are throwing in the "religious right" comments to spin this to try to pin what you call the "religious right" as these backwards zealots. You attempt to try to add weight to the end of your messages with "the framers wouldn't have supported this." Well, I'll tell you one thing. They certainly wouldn't have supported men who are pretending to be women, homosexual "marriages," and losing well over a million babies per year. This wasn't even an issue at the time of the founding fathers, for one thing.

Regarding that quote relating to Sarah Weddington, then what do you think about Norma McCorvey, AKA Jane Roe? She admitted to fabricating a rape case in 1969 to try to get an abortion, and she certainly has a lot to say about Sarah Weddington and how she used McCorvey's situation to try to have the abortion laws overturned. Definitely not as innocent as you're trying to make her seem with that quote.

McCorvey is now a pro-life activist, and also was in a homosexual relationship for 23 years before finding Christ in the mid-1990's.

Now, "how is it defending all abortions to cite an actual statistic?" That was an attempt to spin and lighten down what I said about the country becoming more pro-life even though it didn't have merit on what I mentioned about all the laws passed, etc.

Now, I ask, how is it right to defend that which has led to well over a million deaths per year?

[The Urban Sombrero]

You have mentioned belief in God and in The Bible - Jesus didn't say to make that relationship public "except for...." Someone who struggles with sin, I sympathize with that. But supporting it via the vote or through other manners is unacceptable.

But, there are many people who are pro-life and non-Christian. You are throwing in the "religious right" comments to spin this to try to pin what you call the "religious right" as these backwards zealots. You attempt to try to add weight to the end of your messages with "the framers wouldn't have supported this." Well, I'll tell you one thing. They certainly wouldn't have supported men who are pretending to be women, homosexual "marriages," and losing well over a million babies per year. This wasn't even an issue at the time of the founding fathers, for one thing.

Regarding that quote relating to Sarah Weddington, then what do you think about Norma McCorvey, AKA Jane Roe? She admitted to fabricating a rape case in 1969 to try to get an abortion, and she certainly has a lot to say about Sarah Weddington and how she used McCorvey's situation to try to have the abortion laws overturned. Definitely not as innocent as you're trying to make her seem with that quote.

McCorvey is now a pro-life activist, and also was in a homosexual relationship for 23 years before finding Christ in the mid-1990's.

Now, "how is it defending all abortions to cite an actual statistic?" That was an attempt to spin and lighten down what I said about the country becoming more pro-life even though it didn't have merit on what I mentioned about all the laws passed, etc.

Now, I ask, how is it right to defend that which has led to well over a million deaths per year?

I do not enter a woman's womb. The statistic was a fact, which you chose to spin. The quote is from the oral argument of Roe v. Wade and is not a comment on the speaker. In other places, I have said I believe in the sincerity of those of the religious Right on this forum, and in friendships. I do not share the view that "essential liberty" is bounded by any one religion's or its adherant's convictions. Certainly abortions were not unheard of in the days of Jefferson and company, nor was homosexuality. In my view, to defend essential liberty is not to defend the myriad behaviors and choices that free people might and do make. It is to defend their right to make them. Essential liberty may include more than it did in 1776, but it should never include less. I completely reject the idea that interpreting the Constitution in ways consistent with essential liberty and freedom of conscience is somehow beyond the pale of consideration when thinking about the Framers.

[Hoot Gibson]

This is a shocker. Trump lied about having a plan to wipe out the national debt in eight years because "it was a very hard fought primary campaign."

Newt Gingrich admitted earlier today that the Trump economic plan numbers do not add up because no candidate's numbers ever add up.

Trump adviser backs off plan to wipe out U.S. debt in 8 years

In April, Donald Trump told the Washington Post he could wipe out America's $19 trillion debt in 8 years.

On Sunday, an economic adviser for the Trump campaign acknowledged it's not doable.

"I think it would be hard to eliminate it," said David Malpass, speaking on CNN Sunday night. "I think we just have too much debt for it to go away in a short time period."

When asked about the change in position, Malpass responded: "That was a long time ago and it was a very hard-fought primary campaign."

[WideRight05]

I do not enter a woman's womb. The statistic was a fact, which you chose to spin. The quote is from the oral argument of Roe v. Wade and is not a comment on the speaker. In other places, I have said I believe in the sincerity of those of the religious Right on this forum, and in friendships. I do not share the view that "essential liberty" is bounded by any one religion's or its adherant's convictions. Certainly abortions were not unheard of in the days of Jefferson and company, nor was homosexuality. In my view, to defend essential liberty is not to defend the myriad behaviors and choices that free people might and do make. It is to defend their right to make them. Essential liberty may include more than it did in 1776, but it should never include less. I completely reject the idea that interpreting the Constitution in ways consistent with essential liberty and freedom of conscience is somehow beyond the pale of consideration when thinking about the Framers.

No, you tried to spin it when I said the country has become more pro-life by taking a small segment, although I am one, that believes in eliminating abortion entirely. You spun it as if only "7 to 19 percent" of the country was pro-life. Sure, some believe in exceptions, and I disagree with that, but it's certainly a lot better than supporting the other 95% of abortions, or being "pro-choice," as you have acknowledged doing.

If somebody wants to make poor decisions in life, there has been nothing stopping them. That's the problem with trying to make it law that it's okay, making special protected classes and putting a stamp of approval on these behaviors. If you are so passionate about rights, what about the rights of the unborn? Doesn't a baby have rights?

You talk about defending freedom of conscience, when many of these people who are "pro-choice" have supported laws in California and Illinois which would force doctors, pregnancy care centers, etc. to promote abortion - which the Illinois bill describes as "treatment." This administration was in a lawsuit with Little Sisters of the Poor, for crying out loud. The multiple attempts recently to force Churches, businesses, and pregnancy care centers show that it's much more than just about "choice" - in the eyes of the liberal, the word choice means "comply."

You are quite passionately defending something that has resulted in the deaths of over one million pre-born children per year.

[TheRealThing]

So, your God is real, and every other one is fictional? Now, that makes you a good Christian monotheist, but what I keep pressing is this: what compulsion do the religious beliefs of the majority, or for that matter minority, place upon the rest of the society under our form of constitutional democracy?

If I understand you correctly, you suggest the Framers believed our society was undergirded by the belief in a Creator and in his moral law. While I am asserting that an utmost respect for freedom of conscience in matters of essential liberty was fundamental, with the belief those essential liberties were not given by Man, but by the Creator. Does the Creator give a woman the freedom to choose to end a pregnancy? I say "yes." We are accountable for how we use the freedom granted, but we are not to impede another's use of their own.

I say you're wrong.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ If in your worldview defending a person's freedom to choose is morally the same as the choice made by that person, there is really no point in further debate.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I say you're wrong.

The Creator does not allow that liberty? How so? If the choice is disobedience, is it not still an exercise of freedom?

[TheRealThing]

^^There never was a valid point for debate. Murder is wrong.

[The Urban Sombrero]

^^There never was a valid point for debate. Murder is wrong.

We disagree. No surprise.

[TheRealThing]

We disagree. No surprise.

If we disagree, your argument is not with me, it is with the Almighty, He's the One Who said murdering the innocents is wrong, and it will be He you face at the judgment.

[The Urban Sombrero]

If we disagree, your argument is not with me, it is with the Almighty, He's the One Who said murdering the innocents is wrong, and it will be He you face at the judgment.

I am confident of my salvation, my brother. It is granted by the same Father who put a tree of choice before Adam and Eve. I chose the life-giving tree long ago.

[TheRealThing]

I am confident of my salvation, my brother. It is granted by the same Father who put a tree of choice before Adam and Eve. I chose the life-giving tree long ago.

I am very happy to hear that. But, the tree did not afford them spiritual restoration, and the blood spilled of the animals slain for their hides was only a temporary forward looking fix until the day Christ came and offered His perfect life as the necessary sacrifice on the cross. So, you still insist you can honor The Father by extending homage to those who worship false gods?

The Old Testament is replete with examples of times when the people of Israel tried to make Jehovah first and Baalim second. God rejected them for such in that day, just as He will reject those of similar err in this day. Judges 2:11-15 (KJV)
11 And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim:
12 And they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD to anger.
13 And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.
14 And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies.
15 Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the LORD was against them for evil, as the LORD had said, and as the LORD had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed.

We have to be smart enough to love those who worship false gods, while we reject the temptation to either legitimize or alienate them for doing so. Our lives lived in exemplification of Christ will be the supportive influence they need while the Holy Spirit opens their eyes and convicts them of their lost state. They will start the conversation when they're ready to learn more. In the meantime, there is absolutely no need to dignify them in their ignorance with the baptism of liberalism, which embraces all deities as equals. Obama does exactly that just about every time he speaks. Just as he maligns Republicans for what he perceives to be their intolerance to that end, every time he speaks. There is no international brotherhood of man outside of Christ.

When we started making laws that carved out special conditions for special interest groups, we opened the lid to Pandora's box. This government has already made insurgent forays into the sovereign purview of God when they made, for example, the homosexually deviant a protected class. They decide on secular terms, who is to be coddled, excused, and subsidized, by government and the tax dollars of those deemed by the same sort of short sightedness to have somehow been unfairly advantaged. We used to call that condition equality of opportunity BTW. So, the very government which has turned it's back on the moral authority to govern, is already quite comfortable in defining what is morally right on secular terms and that is what is truly dangerous. By no means do I accept the notion that government has edged up to a legislative line in the sand over which they are unwilling to cross under the ever flexing vagaries of the concept of the separation of Church and state.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ Does God grant to Man essential liberty?

[TheRealThing]

⬆⬆ Does God grant to Man essential liberty?

Not to my way of thinking. Where does that term appear in the US Constitution?

[The Urban Sombrero]

There is brotherhood in Christ, agreed. However, "hath made of one blood all nations of men" suggests an "of dust" kinship as well (from Acts 17:26).

[The Urban Sombrero]

Not to my way of thinking. Where does that term appear in the US Constitution?

Ben Franklin used the phrase "essential liberty" in a letter he wrote addressing a dispute between the Penn family and the Pennsylvania legislature. In addition, the phrase appears in discussions of the Continental Congress. The phrase does not appear in the Constitution, but its thought is expressed in "certain inalienable rights.'

[TheRealThing]

Ben Franklin used the phrase "essential liberty" in a letter he wrote addressing a dispute between the Penn family and the Pennsylvania legislature. In addition, the phrase appears in discussions of the Continental Congress. The phrase does not appear in the Constitution, but its thought is expressed in "certain inalienable rights.'

On the contrary, though as I have already pointed out, it is a phrase used by Franklin and no more part of the Constitution or any founding document, than are any of his other famous quotes. I mean, you might as well annex the entire works of Poor Richard's Almanac. A notable quote does come to mind for the purpose of this discussion, "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic." Your insistent reference to the pursuit of happiness, is a like distortion of the clearly stated rights in the documents; And amounts to nothing more profound than a liberal torpedo, which blows up the validity of our real rights. The list of unalienable rights are listed individually and en-toto. Adding things like the pursuit of homosexuality to the list is a defilement, pure and simple. Just as is the suggestion that welfare is constitutional because it helps people pursue happiness.

Those rights BTW, are what the Constitution calls out, not the slurve-ball you keep trying to throw into the discussion. Which is something you keep calling essential liberty, and not at all what Franklin was speaking of or concerned about upon our founding. Another quote attributable to Franklin, when a lady asked Dr. Franklin who was exiting the Constitutional Convention; "Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" to which Franklin replied, "A republic maam, if you can keep it.”

As current events plainly show, Franklin had every right to be concerned that the purity of thought which established liberty in the first place, would be polluted by leftist rationales. So as things turned out the erosive forces of the left were already at work, trying to undermine the Constitution even then. The term 'Essential liberty' is merely more clever language dreamed up by leftist usurpers, in which to couch their liberal doctrines meant to make them more sellable. There is no difference between essential liberty, and just plain old liberty the true gift of the founders, and the object of Franklin's concern. The word essential, was only an endearing term Franklin used because the price paid to achieve liberty came at such a high cost to those who had the vision and the courage to fight for it.

[TheRealThing]

There is brotherhood in Christ, agreed. However, "hath made of one blood all nations of men" suggests an "of dust" kinship as well (from Acts 17:26).

Still talking about the same thing. The blood of Christ is the only eternal link among the nations. Anything else is a doctrine of men.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Still talking about the same thing. The blood of Christ is the only eternal link among the nations. Anything else is a doctrine of men.

Eh, from one man God made every nation of men...I see what you are saying, but from Adam and Eve there is also a kinship of dust. I do not believe peace and brotherhood can come from this kinship of dust, as through this connection came sin and disobedience. However, I wouldn't say that appealing to this kinship in pursuit of peace and compassion is pointless and secular.

[WideRight05]

[Image: https://therionorteline.files.wordpress....01-118.jpg]

[Hoot Gibson]

Stunts like campaigning in states like Connecticut will just re-ignite suspicions that Trump entered this race to help Hillary win it. Why hold rallies in a state that was last won by a Republican presidential candidate in 1964, when he is trailing in states where Republican nominees have rarely lost?

Trump’s run at blue Connecticut

Struggling where he should be leading, the GOP nominee diverts to a state that Republicans do not win.

Donald Trump’s poll numbers are faltering in deep-red states from South Carolina to Georgia, his organization is a mess in perhaps the most important county in Ohio, and he admits that he has a “tremendous problem” in Utah, which hasn’t gone Democratic since 1964.

And yet, on Saturday, Trump is hosting a rally in Fairfield County, Conn., a county that Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama by 11 percentage points, in a state that hasn’t voted Republican since 1988.

It’s a move that is flummoxing and infuriating Republicans who believe Trump should be spending time and resources in winnable states, not in a place that few consider to be competitive.

“At this point, Florida looks in trouble, North Carolina looks in trouble, they don’t even know who their people are in Ohio,” said Charlie Harper, a prominent conservative writer who runs a think tank in Georgia, where Trump is sliding in the polls. “He can go have lunch in Connecticut and be home for supper, but the map is changing rapidly in the opposite direction. Hillary Clinton is not going to move in to defend Connecticut just because Trump went there.”

It’s unlikely she’ll need to, given the strong Democratic bent of the state, which has a Democratic governor, an entirely Democratic congressional delegation and voted for Obama by 18 percentage points in 2012. Former GOP Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut has also recently endorsed her over Trump.
Clinton does, however, have a fundraiser scheduled in tony Greenwich, Conn. on Monday—candidates often come to the moneyed New York suburbs located in the state for fundraising.

Trump’s spokeswoman didn’t respond when asked if he would also be doing fundraising during his swing through the state, an activity that veteran Republicans said would be more strategic than the planned rally. But even then, they questioned why he would spend significant time doing public events in a state—and region--he is unlikely to win.

“No one in the world thinks he has a shot in Connecticut,” said Stuart Stevens, Romney’s 2012 chief strategist. He went on to add, “I mean, he’s not going to win any state within that media market.”

[Hoot Gibson]

Who could have seen this coming? The RNC will not continue throwing money away on a loser like Trump if they can salvage control of Congress. I hope that the RNC has learned its lesson from the Trump debacle and eliminates open primaries for the 2020 election cycle. Republicans should choose the Republican nominee and the candidates for the nomination should, in fact, be Republicans.

RNC considers cutting cash to Trump

GOP officials lay the groundwork to blame their nominee if Clinton wins.

Publicly, Republican Party officials continue to stand by Donald Trump. Privately, at the highest levels, party leaders have started talking about cutting off support to Trump in October and redirecting cash to saving endangered congressional majorities.

Since the Cleveland convention, top party officials have been quietly making the case to political journalists, donors and GOP operatives that the Republican National Committee has done more to help Trump than it did to support its 2012 nominee Mitt Romney and that, therefore, Trump has only himself and his campaign to blame for his precipitous slide in the polls, according to people who have spoken with Republican leadership.

Sean Spicer, the RNC’s top strategist, on Wednesday made that case to 14 political reporters he convened at the organization’s Capitol Hill headquarters for an off-the-record conversation about the election.

[Hoot Gibson]

The article linked below makes some excellent points about why Donald Trump should be well ahead of Hillary Clinton in the polls. Poll after poll show that voters support Trump's position on most major issues - but Trump spends too little time talking about issues with any specificity on the campaign trail. IMO, he has already wasted too much time alienating Republican leaders and voters and waging a war on the media to win the election. Still, I wonder why Trump is running such a self destructive campaign that is almost certainly leading him to defeat.

Had any other Republican candidate won the nomination, they would have been forcing Hillary Clinton to defend her unpopular positions on issues. The GOP squandered a great opportunity when they allowed a candidate who never voted in a Republican primary to compete for the nomination. Lesson learned? Let's hope so.

All the Issues Favor Trump

In the wake of the Democratic convention, some foot-in-mouth comments by Donald Trump, and a poll bounce for Hillary Clinton, much of the political class has decided that the presidential race is all but over. But across most of America, voters are at least as apt to be swayed by issues as by a convention's production values or a candidate's gaffes—and essentially every issue favors Trump.

Why, then, is Clinton developing such a lead in the polls? Because she, Trump, and the media all seem to agree upon one thing—that the issues are to be avoided. Clinton and the media avoid the issues because they know she's hurt by them. Trump avoids the issues for reasons that are harder to ascertain—perhaps because he doesn't fully realize how much they benefit him or perhaps just because he finds it easier and more enjoyable to talk about something else. But if he were to start talking policy, his electoral fortunes might turn around.

[jetpilot]

The article linked below makes some excellent points about why Donald Trump should be well ahead of Hillary Clinton in the polls. Poll after poll show that voters support Trump's position on most major issues - but Trump spends too little time talking about issues with any specificity on the campaign trail. IMO, he has already wasted too much time alienating Republican leaders and voters and waging a war on the media to win the election. Still, I wonder why Trump is running such a self destructive campaign that is almost certainly leading him to defeat.

Had any other Republican candidate won the nomination, they would have been forcing Hillary Clinton to defend her unpopular positions on issues. The GOP squandered a great opportunity when they allowed a candidate who never voted in a Republican primary to compete for the nomination. Lesson learned? Let's hope so.

You deserve Hillary more than most, and you are going to get her. When she picks Scalia's replacement on SCOTUS, I'm going to think of idiots like you and say "That's good enough for them." That's not even getting into all the rest of the damage she is going to do.

[TheRealThing]

Who could have seen this coming? The RNC will not continue throwing money away on a loser like Trump if they can salvage control of Congress. I hope that the RNC has learned its lesson from the Trump debacle and eliminates open primaries for the 2020 election cycle. Republicans should choose the Republican nominee and the candidates for the nomination should, in fact, be Republicans.

^^I don't believe a word of this, Reince Priebus has denounced it as a complete fabrication. Though I would not doubt that the #NeverWasers are out sneaking around in the shadows in an effort to undermine the people's nominee. You've carried the liberal's water since the day you claimed you'd be voting for Trump. Everybody on here knows how much time you spend in the cyber dumpster looking for trash to post.

Kenneth P. Vogel - "One of the journalists exposed exchanging emails with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) by the latest Wikileak was Politico’s Chief Investigative Reporter Ken Vogel, who formerly worked for a Soros-funded group."
http://www.newsbusters.org/journalists/

Eli Stokols - Proudly advertises his work under the slogan "LIBERAL MEDIA, part of the global conspiracy."
http://liberalmedia.us/author/eli-stokols/

[Hoot Gibson]

You deserve Hillary more than most, and you are going to get her. When she picks Scalia's replacement on SCOTUS, I'm going to think of idiots like you and say "That's good enough for them." That's not even getting into all the rest of the damage she is going to do.

I've already voted against Hillary once, when I voted for Ted Cruz. Trump never had a chance of winning the election and people who thought he did were fools. I would vote for a conservative Republican if one was running.

Not only will Trump lose in November, his coattails will probably cost the Republicans the majority in the Senate as well. Those who voted for Trump have set the table for Hillary and now she will probably run it.

[jetpilot]

I've already voted against Hillary once, when I voted for Ted Cruz. Trump never had a chance of winning the election and people who thought he did were fools. I would vote for a conservative Republican if one was running.

Not only will Trump lose in November, his coattails will probably cost the Republicans the majority in the Senate as well. Those who voted for Trump have set the table for Hillary and now she will probably run it.

http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/sho...ostcount=5

[Hoot Gibson]

Trump's war on the media continues unabated. Trump's campaign consists of one sideshow after another. He is either unable or unwilling to focus on his opponent. Is he trying to lose, or can he just not help himself?

[url=http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/291377-trump-im-running-against-media-not-clinton]Trump: I’m running against media, not Clinton[/url]

Donald Trump on Saturday said that his true opponent in the general election is the media.

“I’m not running against Crooked Hillary [Clinton], I’m running against the crooked media,” Trump said at a rally in Fairfield, Conn. “That’s what I’m running against. I’m not running against Crooked Hillary.”
Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, has repeatedly lashed out at media that he calls “dishonest” over the course of his campaign.

Earlier Saturday, he bashed The New York Times after a report came out in which sources characterized Trump as “sullen” and struggling to recover in light of lagging poll numbers.

He renewed those attacks on the Times at the rally Saturday, saying he’s considering revoking the paper's credentials to cover his rallies.

“I’ll tell you, in particular, lately, we have a newspaper that’s failing badly, it's losing a lot of money, it's gonna be out of business very soon: The New York Times,” he said.

Trump blasted the use of anonymous sources in the Times report, saying, “I don’t think they have any names."

He added: “They never call me. It’s going to hell.”

Trump continued, saying, “Maybe what we’ll do, we’ll start taking their press credentials away from them.”

Trump has revoked the press credentials of a number of media outlets including Politico, The Washington Post and The Huffington Post.

But The Washington Post, Trump said, has “been much nicer” recently and he may reinstate its credentials.

Trump also blasted CNN for criticizing him for calling President Obama “the founder of [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria],” a comment that the mogul later said was sarcastic, “but not that sarcastic.”

“CNN is so disgusting,” he said. “And, by the way, their ratings are going down big league. You know why? Because I refuse to be interviewed. And I get high ratings. What can I say?

“These people are so dishonest."

[RunItUpTheGut]

Good to see Hillary's number one fan has returned. I guess the pouting in a corner is over for now. Run along now and cast your vote for Hillary little buddy.