[Pick6]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/party-loyalt...1474498244

You can really feel the Trump momentum building now. The African American outreach seems like it has been very effective. Resurrecting the Birther issue shows that the Dems are threatened by this out reach!!

[The Urban Sombrero]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/party-loyalt...1474498244

You can really feel the Trump momentum building now. The African American outreach seems like it has been very effective. Resurrecting the Birther issue shows that the Dems are threatened by this out reach!!

Spin cycle: director says, "Roll 'em."

Any Democrat who thought this election would be anything but razor-thin close was dreaming and not paying attention. The last RCP composite I saw had Clinton at 41% and Trump at 39.9%. We used to say, "It's anybody's ballgame," and that is certainly true about November 8.

[TheRealThing]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/party-loyalt...1474498244

You can really feel the Trump momentum building now. The African American outreach seems like it has been very effective. Resurrecting the Birther issue shows that the Dems are threatened by this out reach!!

Agree. The diehard liberals still only make up about 22% of the electorate, but though the DNC knows they may be depended upon to vote for Hillary as early and as often as possible, political sects once reliably beholden to Dems are suddenly very much in play. In fact, the Reagan Democrats, the unforeseen and surging number of crossover voters, and the so-called independents are deserting the liberal cause in droves, along with people of conscience from all walks of life that threaten to tip the balance for Trump. Said balance BTW, being the work product of much time, treasure and toil for the Dems, is a threat to the health of this nation IMHO. Here's why; Those who demand material things from government should never be in the position to vote their political champions into power in order to ensure that they get those material things because it is the working class who're forced to pay for them. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN-------"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

If the voter does succeed in breaking the power of the establishment this election cycle, maybe we will finally see voter ID's and a return to accountability for elected officials in this country. That being said you are exactly right, the resurgence of the birther controversy is a direct reflection of the left's desperation. Oh never mind the fact that the birther movement got its start in the Hillary campaign of 2008, the useful idiots will believe anything. :please:

I believe Trump will out perform Romney among the traditional Democrat strongholds we've heard so much about recently from the Trump detractors. Put everything together, and I would disagree with the fallback rhetoric of the left as to which candidate one would rather be right now at the end of the day.

[Do-double-gg]

As we sit here and observe Trump and Clinton being neck and neck I recall a lot of Democrats 8short years ago proclaiming the death of the Republican party lol. They said that that this Country was becoming more liberal in it's views and beliefs. Here is some facts.
1.The overwhelming majority of people in this Nation still believe in God and Christianity
2. A majority of people in this nation still believe that things like abortion and homosexual is wrong and immoral. I would say you have a lot who say their OK with it but deep inside aren't but have no spine to speak up out of fear of not being politically correct.
3. A majority of people in this nation still believe in the right to own firearms. So quoting Obama it would seem the majority of American citizens cling to their guns and Bibles lol!
It is funny to me that during our elections the Democratic party gets most of it's wins in states with large city's with high concentrated populations and in turn most of those states have a huge electoral college impact. In my personal opinion the electoral college bull shite is the worst thing to have ever been introduced into our election process. It makes a lot of Americans feel like their vote don't count for much when they live in a state that has little to no impact on things and it makes one feel like not every state is equal. I say get rid of the electoral college and let every person in every state vote then count em all up and whoever gets the highest total wins. Sweet and simple and in my opinion a clear guage of what direction the people if this Nation are really leaning and what they really want.

[Pick6]

As we sit here and observe Trump and Clinton being neck and neck I recall a lot of Democrats 8short years ago proclaiming the death of the Republican party lol. They said that that this Country was becoming more liberal in it's views and beliefs. Here is some facts.
1.The overwhelming majority of people in this Nation still believe in God and Christianity
2. A majority of people in this nation still believe that things like abortion and homosexual is wrong and immoral. I would say you have a lot who say their OK with it but deep inside aren't but have no spine to speak up out of fear of not being politically correct.
3. A majority of people in this nation still believe in the right to own firearms. So quoting Obama it would seem the majority of American citizens cling to their guns and Bibles lol!
It is funny to me that during our elections the Democratic party gets most of it's wins in states with large city's with high concentrated populations and in turn most of those states have a huge electoral college impact. In my personal opinion the electoral college bull shite is the worst thing to have ever been introduced into our election process. It makes a lot of Americans feel like their vote don't count for much when they live in a state that has little to no impact on things and it makes one feel like not every state is equal. I say get rid of the electoral college and let every person in every state vote then count em all up and whoever gets the highest total wins. Sweet and simple and in my opinion a clear guage of what direction the people if this Nation are really leaning and what they really want.

Of coarse, you realize under your system, Al
Gore would have been elected President in 2000.

I also disagree with your main premise. Christianity is in retreat. Liberalism (and globalism) is advancing. Church attendance is in decline. Baptisms are in decline. States that were red states for decades are becoming competitive (Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia). Soon, persecution of Christians in this country will be very real. Just look at the leftist propaganda that paints Christianity as racist.

If HRC is elected, 11 million illegal aliens will become democratic voting citizens and we will be well on our way to becoming a socialist state

[The Urban Sombrero]

Of coarse, you realize under your system, Al
Gore would have been elected President in 2000.

I also disagree with your main premise. Christianity is in retreat. Liberalism (and globalism) is advancing. Church attendance is in decline. Baptisms are in decline. States that were red states for decades are becoming competitive (Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia). Soon, persecution of Christians in this country will be very real. Just look at the leftist propaganda that paints Christianity as racist.

If HRC is elected, 11 million illegal aliens will become democratic voting citizens and we will be well on our way to becoming a socialist state

This post is highly speculative, and I suspect G Gordon Liddy authored it.

[TheRealThing]

Of coarse, you realize under your system, Al
Gore would have been elected President in 2000.

I also disagree with your main premise. Christianity is in retreat. Liberalism (and globalism) is advancing. Church attendance is in decline. Baptisms are in decline. States that were red states for decades are becoming competitive (Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia). Soon, persecution of Christians in this country will be very real. Just look at the leftist propaganda that paints Christianity as racist.
[SIZE="3"]
If HRC is elected, 11 million illegal aliens will become democratic voting citizens[/SIZE] and we will be well on our way to becoming a socialist state

This post is highly speculative, and I suspect G Gordon Liddy authored it.

Why worry about the becoming legal part for aliens? Many of them will vote in this election anyway thanks to Dems having blocked voter ID's. But if there is anything speculative at all in your post, we wouldn't know it by what Hillary has said.

[The Urban Sombrero]

The gay marriage decision does not represent the persecution of Christians. I have been among the Hmong. It is "spoilt brat" talk for American believers to claim imminent persecution.

[TheRealThing]

The gay marriage decision does not represent the persecution of Christians. I have been among the Hmong. It is "spoilt brat" talk for American believers to claim imminent persecution.

Who suggested US legal recognition of the homosexual lifestyle is persecuting Christians? It is both the charter and the responsibility of the Church to call out sin in any form, and that certainly includes gay marriage. The conspicuous absence of Church involvement in such matters has brought shame and coming judgment on the Church in my view. Reproach is the plight of the disobedient, persecution is the badge of honor for the obedient.

I always wonder when professing ChristIans call for tolerance from the Church where sin is concerned. In any case, the Department of Education ought not to be usurping the rightful role and purview of the Church in such matters, but they are.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Who suggested US legal recognition of the homosexual lifestyle is persecuting Christians? It is both the charter and the responsibility of the Church to call out sin in any form, and that certainly includes gay marriage. The conspicuous absence of Church involvement in such matters has brought shame and coming judgment on the Church in my view. Reproach is the plight of the disobedient, persecution is the badge of honor for the obedient.

I always wonder when professing ChristIans call for tolerance from the Church where sin is concerned. In any case, the Department of Education ought not to be usurping the rightful role and purview of the Church in such matters, but they are.

Probably 90% of all Christ professers in America, if not more, believe homosexuality is a sin, and honor that belief with obedience. Thus, "the Church" is not under indictment, in my view, as you suggest. You seem to imply that God will judge "the Church" for allowing a secular state to grant its citizens equal protection under the law. This is foolhardy as I see it. If we are "strangers and pilgrims" in this world, if here "we have no continuing city," it would appear odd to, then, judge these strangers and pilgrims for the goings and comings of an alien world.

[TheRealThing]

Probably 90% of all Christ professers in America, if not more, believe homosexuality is a sin, and honor that belief with obedience. Thus, "the Church" is not under indictment, in my view, as you suggest. You seem to imply that God will judge "the Church" for allowing a secular state to grant its citizens equal protection under the law. This is foolhardy as I see it. If we are "strangers and pilgrims" in this world, if here "we have no continuing city," it would appear odd to, then, judge these strangers and pilgrims for the goings and comings of an alien world.

The purview and charter of the Church is to indict sin in all forms, and that would certainly include the sin of homosexuality as, God did in fact destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for that very sin. The Church indicts sin but offers the truth about salvation as the only remedy. God then, will judge all who reject so great a salvation, damning them to eternal separation from Himself. We the Church indict, God judges. The rest of you post is an example of liberal rationalizations and compromise where none exist, as I see it.

[The Urban Sombrero]

The purview and charter of the Church is to indict sin in all forms, and that would certainly include the sin of homosexuality as, God did in fact destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for that very sin. The Church indicts sin but offers the truth about salvation as the only remedy. God then, will judge all who reject so great a salvation, damning them to eternal separation from Himself. We the Church indict, God judges. The rest of you post is an example of liberal rationalizations and compromise where none exist, as I see it.

"The Church" certainly is free in this nation to proclaim what it believes. What it is not free to do is to dictate to the State what rights the civil authority may grant and which ones they must not recognize. That isn't liberal, friend. That's Constitutional democracy. Of course, "the Church" may compete in the markstplace of ideas and images for the hearts and minds of people. Nobody is dictating to you that you must embrace gay marriage as not sinful. But, you wish, not simply to proclaim that it is sinful, but to encode its denial to citizens so inclined, and, thereby, violate essential liberty.

[TheRealThing]

"The Church" certainly is free in this nation to proclaim what it believes. What it is not free to do is to dictate to the State what rights the civil authority may grant and which ones they must not recognize. That isn't liberal, friend. That's Constitutional democracy. Of course, "the Church" may compete in the markstplace of ideas and images for the hearts and minds of people. Nobody is dictating to you that you must embrace gay marriage as not sinful. But, you wish, not simply to proclaim that it is sinful, but to encode its denial to citizens so inclined, and, thereby, violate essential liberty.

Actually like all libs, you try and hitch the cart in front of the horse. God had already declared homosexual behavior a signpost sin for any society long before the great flood, much less the example He made of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is the state which has usurped the law of the Highest in declaring the acts of homosexuals an acceptable alternative to the natural example of Adam and Eve. As I said, you are forever defending the indefensible.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Actually like all libs, you try and hitch the cart in front of the horse. God had already declared homosexual behavior a signpost sin for any society long before the great flood, much less the example He made of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is the state which has usurped the law of the Highest in declaring the acts of homosexuals an acceptable alternative to the natural example of Adam and Eve. As I said, you are forever defending the indefensible.

The State upheld equal protection under the law and essential liberty. To equate a whole host of citizens showing up to demand to rape a visitor with a Supreme Court decision granting equal protection under the law to a group of citizens is painting with a pretty broad brush.

[TheRealThing]

The State upheld equal protection under the law and essential liberty. To equate a whole host of citizens showing up to demand to rape a visitor with a Supreme Court decision granting equal protection under the law to a group of citizens is painting with a pretty broad brush.

No my brush is rather narrow in fact. We can baby step our way to open rebellion and maybe not feel so guilty about it, but as the Lord has said, He does not compromise. His Word will not return unto Him void and thus we will and are paying the price for our arrogance. Using the law to run over the law, the state ran over the will of the people to wit in many cases, the individual states had referendums on the matter in which the people clearly rejected the issue of gay marriage by very large majorities. Some states had even gone to the trouble to clearly define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Seeded liberal activist judges overruled the will of the people, and legislating from the bench they declared by decree otherwise. Such has been the takeover of our society by the godless, whom you defend continually while at the same time professing allegiance to the King of Kings.

I believe the reason the Lord included the details about the citizens of Sodom who came to Lot's house and demanded he turn over God's own angels so that they could have sex with them on the very eve of their own destruction for that very obsessive sin, was to demonstrate for perpetuity how incredibly evil they had become. Still, you and others like you would slur the obvious lesson given to us to make a political rationalization.

When we began overturning God's law in matters such as the repeal of DADT and the now rampantly absurd applications in force as the result of Roe v Wade, we at that point did so in defiance of His authority over us. Things have gone down hill for this nation rapidly since we embraced homosexuality. In fact, our own President has been making the international rounds declaring to the world they should follow the example set by the US in accepting the homosexual lifestyle as a part of nature. The Church can never cede that spiritual ground, and she is dead as a doornail if she ever does. I for one am both offended and terrified for our country for it's arrogant defiance of the One True God.

[The Urban Sombrero]

No my brush is rather narrow in fact. We can baby step our way to open rebellion and maybe not feel so guilty about it, but as the Lord has said, He does not compromise. His Word will not return unto Him void and thus we will and are paying the price for our arrogance. Using the law to run over the law, the state ran over the will of the people to wit in many cases, the individual states had referendums on the matter in which the people clearly rejected the issue of gay marriage by very large majorities. Some states had even gone to the trouble to clearly define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Seeded liberal activist judges overruled the will of the people, and legislating from the bench they declared by decree otherwise. Such has been the takeover of our society by the godless, whom you defend continually while at the same time professing allegiance to the King of Kings.

I believe the reason the Lord included the details about the citizens of Sodom who came to Lot's house and demanded he turn over God's own angels so that they could have sex with them on the very eve of their own destruction for that very obsessive sin, was to demonstrate for perpetuity how incredibly evil they had become. Still, you and others like you would slur the obvious lesson given to us to make a political rationalization.

When we began overturning God's law in matters such as the repeal of DADT and the now rampantly absurd applications in force as the result of Roe v Wade, we at that point did so in defiance of His authority over us. Things have gone down hill for this nation rapidly since we embraced homosexuality. In fact, our own President has been making the international rounds declaring to the world they should follow the example set by the US in accepting the homosexual lifestyle as a part of nature. The Church can never cede that spiritual ground, and she is dead as a doornail if she ever does. I for one am both offended and terrified for our country for it's arrogant defiance of the One True God.

Comparing the choices of two consenting adults with a mob demanding a host bring out a guest to be raped?

Christians (God's kids) and Jews (God's chosen) enjoy tremendous and unhindered liberty in this nation. Granting equal protection under the law is not the scenario in S & G equivalent.

Your view of God? "You've been good to my children, but you don't govern as my church. Off with your head." It's not Biblical, friend.

[TheRealThing]

Comparing the choices of two consenting adults with a mob demanding a host bring out a guest to be raped?

Christians (God's kids) and Jews (God's chosen) enjoy tremendous and unhindered liberty in this nation. Granting equal protection under the law is not the scenario in S & G equivalent.

Your view of God? "You've been good to my children, but you don't govern as my church. Off with your head." It's not Biblical, friend.

Oh it's Biblical alright friend. And if I were you I'd be very careful how I mitigated the clear teachings of the Word.

2 Corinthians 5:11 (KJV)
11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

I'll tell you what. You start backing up some of your Biblical assertions with Scripture and not that essential liberty blather of your liberal kindred's invention, and you may have a point. My view of God is exactly according to Scripture.

I did not say God rejects all who err, I did say God rejects all who come before Him who have not accepted Christ as Savior. I did further state that when one stands before The Living God at the judgment, only the blood of Christ will hide his sin from the eyes of God. And only a true salvation experience, in which one is sealed by the none other than the Holy Ghost Himself, can one hope to escape eternal damnation, separated from God. What I said is exactly right, men who overturn God's law with their own law are headed for judgment. And people who uphold and support the actions of men who do such things will bear the burden of that support, as in he case of voting for them in public elections.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Oh it's Biblical alright friend. And if I were you I'd be very careful how I mitigated the clear teachings of the Word.

2 Corinthians 5:11 (KJV)
11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

I'll tell you what. You start backing up some of your Biblical assertions with Scripture and not that essential liberty blather of your liberal kindred's invention, and you may have a point. My view of God is exactly according to Scripture.

I did not say God rejects all who err, I did say God rejects all who come before Him who have not accepted Christ as Savior. I did further state that when one stands before The Living God at the judgment, only the blood of Christ will hide his sin from the eyes of God. And only a true salvation experience, in which one is sealed by the none other than the Holy Ghost Himself, can one hope to escape eternal damnation, separated from God. What I said is exactly right, men who overturn God's law with their own law are headed for judgment. And people who uphold and support the actions of men who do such things will bear the burden of that support, as in he case of voting for them in public elections.

The United States Supreme Court, in a sense, granted equal protection under the law to same sex couples in the basic human contract of marriage. Essential liberty is not blather. In fact, it squares with that aspect of God's will which grants human beings a choice, a free will, as He wanted love freely given, not coerced.

You are suggesting here the Divine right of kings for the Republican Party, and you're wrong. Your politics often informs your religion, in my view, as the tail wags the dog. If God "makes" His sun rise on the evil and the good, and "sends" rain on the just and unjust, it is not somehow horrific beyond measure for a court to grant equal protection to two consenting adults.

[TheRealThing]

The United States Supreme Court, in a sense, granted equal protection under the law to same sex couples in the basic human contract of marriage. Essential liberty is not blather. In fact, it squares with that aspect of God's will which grants human beings a choice, a free will, as He wanted love freely given, not coerced.

You are suggesting here the Divine right of kings for the Republican Party, and you're wrong. Your politics often informs your religion, in my view, as the tail wags the dog. If God "makes" His sun rise on the evil and the good, and "sends" rain on the just and unjust, it is not somehow horrific beyond measure for a court to grant equal protection to two consenting adults.

You know, when you first came on here I noted that you're a retread, a fact that you did not deny. I have always wondered why when your write, it doesn't seem to bother you that your inflections, phrases, cadence and vocabulary so closely mirror my own. That's why I said at that point that I recognize my own style of writing when I see it, and I also recognize the tremendous impact that I've actually had on you.

That being said, I always clearly state what I mean to say. You on the other hand always have to spin what I say so that you may inject some new argument into the conversation. The divine right of kings was a false doctrine of 17th and 18th Century England and France by which certain kings of those countries claimed divinely inspired guidance and absolution. To say I would ascribe such lunacy to the Republican Party is asinine. Just as it is asinine to suggest that because God allows sin, He somehow will not judge sin. Gay people already had protection under the law, as they did the same full set of rights we all had. Your argument is therefore ridiculous. Just as is the act of granting legislative carve outs and privileges for homosexuals, thusly creating a newly protected class based on nothing more than sexual deviancy. Homosexuals have always had the right to sin, "men with men working that which is unseemly," with each other. We chose not to pester them about it and sort of hid them humanely under a don't ask don't tell policy. But no, that wasn't good enough for the liberal ever on his secular humanistic bent. Passing legislation validating that particular sin is unacceptable to all Christians, hence the overwhelming referendums on the issue are an enduring matter of record. As it should be unacceptable with anyone who recognizes the sovereignty of God in this world.

This one deserves it's own paragraph. The only reason there is a choice at all, is because God only wants to share eternity with a people who choose Him. Therefore, there must be something else of which to choose from. Man then chooses his own way, which is anything at all which is contrary in any way to God's clearly stated Word on the matter of salvation:
Proverbs 14:12 (KJV)
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
or he chooses God's way:
John 3:17 (KJV)
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Through sin, this world is condemned and only the knowledge of Christ and Him crucified is worthy of men's praise.

The Democrats have openly campaigned for abortion on demand and gay rights since Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro got their heads handed to them for daring to come out with the suggestion back in 1984. The court whether that be the Supreme Court or District Court, is out of line when it rules in contravention to the will of the people as was in the case of gay marriage. The Executive Branch was just as clearly out of line when it pushed to get DADT repealed while the Dems still enjoyed a Super Majority in 2011. There was a reason Dems rammed the repeal through when they did, and many of them fell on their political swords for doing so, as it cost many a Dem dearly when the Republicans swept the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014.

As I have explained to you in times past, I believe that I am in good company in the way I understand how faith should interface with politics. I agree with the Founders on the matter, and I can substantiate my case to that end far easier than you can explain what ever essential liberty is supposed to be. As I said, nary a mention of the phrase exists anywhere in any finalized founding document. The Founders either purposefully edited it out, or just did not recognized it at all. It is beyond amazing that you would redefine the entirety of the US Constitution on a two word phrase the Framers rejected. That says all that needs to be said on the matter. One thing is certain. In this day of lies, many Americans have had a belly full of the deceit and that is why they're voting for Mr Trump.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You know, when you first came on here I noted that you're a retread, a fact that you did not deny. I have always wondered why when your write, it doesn't seem to bother you that your inflections, phrases, cadence and vocabulary so closely mirror my own. That's why I said at that point that I recognize my own style of writing when I see it, and I also recognize the tremendous impact that I've actually had on you.

That being said, I always clearly state what I mean to say. You on the other hand always have to spin what I say so that you may inject some new argument into the conversation. The divine right of kings was a false doctrine of 17th and 18th Century England and France by which certain kings of those countries claimed divinely inspired guidance and absolution. To say I would ascribe such lunacy to the Republican Party is asinine. Just as it is asinine to suggest that because God allows sin, He somehow will not judge sin. Gay people already had protection under the law, as they did the same full set of rights we all had. Your argument is therefore ridiculous. Just as is the act of granting legislative carve outs and privileges for homosexuals, thusly creating a newly protected class based on nothing more than sexual deviancy. Homosexuals have always had the right to sin, "men with men working that which is unseemly," with each other. We chose not to pester them about it and sort of hid them humanely under a don't ask don't tell policy. But no, that wasn't good enough for the liberal ever on his secular humanistic bent. Passing legislation validating that particular sin is unacceptable to all Christians, hence the overwhelming referendums on the issue are an enduring matter of record. As it should be unacceptable with anyone who recognizes the sovereignty of God in this world.

This one deserves it's own paragraph. The only reason there is a choice at all, is because God only wants to share eternity with a people who choose Him. Therefore, there must be something else of which to choose from. Man then chooses his own way, which is anything at all which is contrary in any way to God's clearly stated Word on the matter of salvation:
Proverbs 14:12 (KJV)
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
or he chooses God's way:
John 3:17 (KJV)
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Through sin, this world is condemned and only the knowledge of Christ and Him crucified is worthy of men's praise.

The Democrats have openly campaigned for abortion on demand and gay rights since Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro got their heads handed to them for daring to come out with the suggestion back in 1984. The court whether that be the Supreme Court or District Court, is out of line when it rules in contravention to the will of the people as was in the case of gay marriage. The Executive Branch was just as clearly out of line when it pushed to get DADT repealed while the Dems still enjoyed a Super Majority in 2011. There was a reason Dems rammed the repeal through when they did, and many of them fell on their political swords for doing so, as it cost many a Dem dearly when the Republicans swept the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014.

As I have explained to you in times past, I believe that I am in good company in the way I understand how faith should interface with politics. I agree with the Founders on the matter, and I can substantiate my case to that end far easier than you can explain what ever essential liberty is supposed to be. As I said, nary a mention of the phrase exists anywhere in any finalized founding document. The Founders either purposefully edited it out, or just did not recognized it at all. It is beyond amazing that you would redefine the entirety of the US Constitution on a two word phrase the Framers rejected. That says all that needs to be said on the matter. One thing is certain. In this day of lies, many Americans have had a belly full of the deceit and that is why they're voting for Mr Trump.

Christian reconstructionism notwithstanding, our Founders, at least a great many of them, and the most influential, did not exist in an intellectual vaccuum. They knew full well the movements sweeping Europe.

The words in the Constitution do not exist in a vaccuum either. Essential liberty and freedom of conscience are concepts that shine through.

You are in the "good company" of Christian reconstructionists, who, frankly, deny that this country, from the beginning, had ample example of the frailty of human nature, its faults and foibles and failures. From its misogyny, its prejudice, imprisonment of debtors, its "Trail of Tears," America has reason for humility and caution in the midst of triumphalist exceptionalism. This is a great nation, not a perfect one. Our Constitution, viewed at its highest common denominators, is a magnificent document. It illuminates our failures and lights a path of progess and freedom and equality. And that, friend, is no "retread" of what you are so often selling.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You know, when you first came on here I noted that you're a retread, a fact that you did not deny. I have always wondered why when your write, it doesn't seem to bother you that your inflections, phrases, cadence and vocabulary so closely mirror my own. That's why I said at that point that I recognize my own style of writing when I see it, and I also recognize the tremendous impact that I've actually had on you.

That being said, I always clearly state what I mean to say. You on the other hand always have to spin what I say so that you may inject some new argument into the conversation. The divine right of kings was a false doctrine of 17th and 18th Century England and France by which certain kings of those countries claimed divinely inspired guidance and absolution. To say I would ascribe such lunacy to the Republican Party is asinine. Just as it is asinine to suggest that because God allows sin, He somehow will not judge sin. Gay people already had protection under the law, as they did the same full set of rights we all had. Your argument is therefore ridiculous. Just as is the act of granting legislative carve outs and privileges for homosexuals, thusly creating a newly protected class based on nothing more than sexual deviancy. Homosexuals have always had the right to sin, "men with men working that which is unseemly," with each other. We chose not to pester them about it and sort of hid them humanely under a don't ask don't tell policy. But no, that wasn't good enough for the liberal ever on his secular humanistic bent. Passing legislation validating that particular sin is unacceptable to all Christians, hence the overwhelming referendums on the issue are an enduring matter of record. As it should be unacceptable with anyone who recognizes the sovereignty of God in this world.

This one deserves it's own paragraph. The only reason there is a choice at all, is because God only wants to share eternity with a people who choose Him. Therefore, there must be something else of which to choose from. Man then chooses his own way, which is anything at all which is contrary in any way to God's clearly stated Word on the matter of salvation:
Proverbs 14:12 (KJV)
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
or he chooses God's way:
John 3:17 (KJV)
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Through sin, this world is condemned and only the knowledge of Christ and Him crucified is worthy of men's praise.

The Democrats have openly campaigned for abortion on demand and gay rights since Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro got their heads handed to them for daring to come out with the suggestion back in 1984. The court whether that be the Supreme Court or District Court, is out of line when it rules in contravention to the will of the people as was in the case of gay marriage. The Executive Branch was just as clearly out of line when it pushed to get DADT repealed while the Dems still enjoyed a Super Majority in 2011. There was a reason Dems rammed the repeal through when they did, and many of them fell on their political swords for doing so, as it cost many a Dem dearly when the Republicans swept the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014.

As I have explained to you in times past, I believe that I am in good company in the way I understand how faith should interface with politics. I agree with the Founders on the matter, and I can substantiate my case to that end far easier than you can explain what ever essential liberty is supposed to be. As I said, nary a mention of the phrase exists anywhere in any finalized founding document. The Founders either purposefully edited it out, or just did not recognized it at all. It is beyond amazing that you would redefine the entirety of the US Constitution on a two word phrase the Framers rejected. That says all that needs to be said on the matter. One thing is certain. In this day of lies, many Americans have had a belly full of the deceit and that is why they're voting for Mr Trump.

Christian reconstructionism notwithstanding, our Founders, at least a great many of them, and the most influential, did not exist in an intellectual vaccuum. They knew full well the movements sweeping Europe.

The words in the Constitution do not exist in a vaccuum either. Essential liberty and freedom of conscience are concepts that shine through.

You are in the "good company" of Christian reconstructionists, who, frankly, deny that this country, from the beginning, had ample example of the frailty of human nature, its faults and foibles and failures. From its misogyny, its prejudice, imprisonment of debtors, its "Trail of Tears," America has reason for humility and caution in the midst of triumphalist exceptionalism. This is a great nation, not a perfect one. Our Constitution, viewed at its highest common denominators, is a magnificent document. It illuminates our failures and lights a path of progess and freedom and equality. And that, friend, is no "retread" of what you are so often selling.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆️
Duplicate post: can a Mod please remove

[TheRealThing]

Christian reconstructionism notwithstanding, our Founders, at least a great many of them, and the most influential, did not exist in an intellectual vaccuum. They knew full well the movements sweeping Europe.

The words in the Constitution do not exist in a vaccuum either. Essential liberty and freedom of conscience are concepts that shine through.

You are in the "good company" of Christian reconstructionists, who, frankly, deny that this country, from the beginning, had ample example of the frailty of human nature, its faults and foibles and failures. From its misogyny, its prejudice, imprisonment of debtors, its "Trail of Tears," America has reason for humility and caution in the midst of triumphalist exceptionalism. This is a great nation, not a perfect one. Our Constitution, viewed at its highest common denominators, is a magnificent document. It illuminates our failures and lights a path of progess and freedom and equality. And that, friend, is no "retread" of what you are so often selling.

LOL, shining through now is it? Even though said phrase is a complete fabrication and nonexistent within any founding document? Nobody thinks the nation is a thing if not fraught with human missteps but of course, that has nothing at all to do with the conversation at hand does it? Said conversation went from double g saying homosexuality was wrong, to which you sprang forth in defense saying gay marriage doesn't persecute Christians. I asked what that had to do with anything and it was off to the races.

At that point there was a little back and forth between us with regard to the charge and charter of the Church to call out sin, you evidently think it should not, and then you called for a de facto compartmentalization of spiritual life from secular life. Then seeing your opportunity, you again injected essential liberty into a discussion of moral implications, over which the Church has purview I might add, and then accused me of being the one whose faith is shaped by political opinions.

A little more spiritual discussion and now you accuse me, and I suppose the whole of Christendom, with trying to change history using as it would logically follow, what you say are disingenuous alleges of Christian influence on the persons of Framers; Thereby polluting the true meaning of the constitution with tenets of the Christian faith. Anybody other than me see the problem here? One of us speaks up for God's influence on mankind as seen throughout history and in particular for this discussion's sake the Framers, and maintains therefore, that His unmistakable hand of influence can clearly be seen upon the US Constitution. While the other speaks against God's influence upon the Framers, quotes phrases that are clearly not in the founding documents and mitigates the severity of the sin of homosexuality.

[The Urban Sombrero]

LOL, shining through now is it? Even though said phrase is a complete fabrication and nonexistent within any founding document? Nobody thinks the nation is a thing if not fraught with human missteps but of course, that has nothing at all to do with the conversation at hand does it? Said conversation went from double g saying homosexuality was wrong, to which you sprang forth in defense saying gay marriage doesn't persecute Christians. I asked what that had to do with anything and it was off to the races.

At that point there was a little back and forth between us with regard to the charge and charter of the Church to call out sin, you evidently think it should not, and then you called for a de facto compartmentalization of spiritual life from secular life. Then seeing your opportunity, you again injected essential liberty into a discussion of moral implications, over which the Church has purview I might add, and then accused me of being the one whose faith is shaped by political opinions.

A little more spiritual discussion and now you accuse me, and I suppose the whole of Christendom, with trying to change history using as it would logically follow, what you say are disingenuous alleges of Christian influence on the persons of Framers; Thereby polluting the true meaning of the constitution with tenets of the Christian faith. Anybody other than me see the problem here? One of us speaks up for God's influence on mankind as seen throughout history and in particular for this discussion's sake the Framers, and maintains therefore, that His unmistakable hand of influence can clearly be seen upon the US Constitution. While the other speaks against God's influence upon the Framers, quotes phrases that are clearly not in the founding documents and mitigates the severity of the sin of homosexuality.

"Now there you go again."

The role of the Church to call out sin? I never questioned it. That the Church and the State are often at odds? I never questioned it. That there is something wrong about an individual Christian calling out sin? I never asserted it. That the Framers were influenced by Judaeo-Christian values? I never questioned it.

Yet, it was not only Judaeo-Christian values that was in the intellectual air at that time, nor was the Constitution penned in an intellectual vaccuum.

[TheRealThing]

"Now there you go again."

The role of the Church to call out sin? I never questioned it. That the Church and the State are often at odds? I never questioned it. That there is something wrong about an individual Christian calling out sin? I never asserted it. That the Framers were influenced by Judaeo-Christian values? I never questioned it.

Yet, it was not only Judaeo-Christian values that was in the intellectual air at that time, nor was the Constitution penned in an intellectual vaccuum.

Okay so we're in agreement then. The Framers were smart and informed men who knew what they wanted to say and how to say it. Therefore, if they bought into this idea of essential liberty they would have said it...clearly.

To say the phrase is inferred is a leap of epic proportion, especially in light of the way liberals like use it to alter and mitigate the clear language of the documents. In 1947 in a similar manipulation, liberals again using the court room for their treachery, reached back a century and a half in time to dredge up an obscure personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson in order to ram their version of separation of Church and state down our throats. That dazzling piece of politically adjudicated retro-engineering has cost this land dearly in my view.

But it is my opinion that liberals will never stop chipping away at the alabaster walled fortress that was once the apple of this world's eye until they manage to completely deface the America of our forefathers. How was it Mr Obama so eloquently put it just prior to his ascension? “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama Oct. 30, 2008

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359967/

[The Urban Sombrero]

Okay so we're in agreement then. The Framers were smart and informed men who knew what they wanted to say and how to say it. Therefore, if they bought into this idea of essential liberty they would have said it...clearly.

To say the phrase is inferred is a leap of epic proportion, especially in light of the way liberals like use it to alter and mitigate the clear language of the documents. In 1947 in a similar manipulation, liberals again using the court room for their treachery, reached back a century and a half in time to dredge up an obscure personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson in order to ram their version of separation of Church and state down our throats. That dazzling piece of politically adjudicated retro-engineering has cost this land dearly in my view.

But it is my opinion that liberals will never stop chipping away at the alabaster walled fortress that was once the apple of this world's eye until they manage to completely deface the America of our forefathers. How was it Mr Obama so eloquently put it just prior to his ascension? “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama Oct. 30, 2008

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359967/

Enough. You are plainly a Christian reconstructionist with a romantic, non-historical understanding of the beginning periods of this nation.

We have never been a country of angels guided by a Council of saints. Early America was a moral morass:

• One in five people in the new nation was enslaved.

• Justice for the poor meant stocks and stockades.

• Women suffered virtual peonage.

• Heretics were driven into exile, or worse.

• Native people - the Indians - would be forcibly removed from their land, their fate a "trail of tears" and broken treaties.

For most of our history, people of color were viewed as of lower common denominator than Caucasian. The "highest common denominator" reading of our Constitution is what seeks to set aside the natural biases and prejudices and ignorance of fallen human nature.

As for essential liberty and freedom of conscience, if you can't see them, I have no cure for willful, stubborn, stiff-necked blindness.

[TheRealThing]

Enough. You are plainly a Christian reconstructionist with a romantic, non-historical understanding of the beginning periods of this nation.

We have never been a country of angels guided by a Council of saints. Early America was a moral morass:

• One in five people in the new nation was enslaved.

• Justice for the poor meant stocks and stockades.

• Women suffered virtual peonage.

• Heretics were driven into exile, or worse.

• Native people - the Indians - would be forcibly removed from their land, their fate a "trail of tears" and broken treaties.

For most of our history, people of color were viewed as of lower common denominator than Caucasian. The "highest common denominator" reading of our Constitution is what seeks to set aside the natural biases and prejudices and ignorance of fallen human nature.

As for essential liberty and freedom of conscience, if you can't see them, I have no cure for willful, stubborn, stiff-necked blindness.

Did you just tell me enough? I'll decide if and when to post or not to post, and about what. Thanks, I've read the documents and I saw how some of the races were viewed. It was in a word, unfortunate. All that had to be done to make things right was for the rest of us to be inclusive with the applications of the language and starting in 1863 with no small amount of slings and arrows it was problem solved. That is until Democrats saw an opportunity to use black people as vote farms. Further, I don't know about you but I've known quite a few women who just would not accept responsibility for their own miscues. Hillary being the apex denier to that regard. So, I can sort of see why initially women were not allowed to vote and hold office. :biggrin:

But since you want to go there, I'll oblige. It was the Democrats who would not be reasonable with regard to the slave situation. Abraham Lincoln and those who agreed with him formed the Republican Party in opposition to those who would not abate their stance on slavery.

Thus it was not a geographical issue, north versus south according to the rationale of the Rebel Flag, the south and her plantations. The climate dictated the location of the plantations, the politicians dictated the climate of the government.

That does not mitigate the effectiveness and wisdom of the Constitution. Nor does it give license to make changes for light and transient causes. And BTW, if you can't see the big picture with regard to the survival of this nation I for one am thankful that you only have one vote. You can't use perceived injustices from a century and a half ago to validate things like making the sexually deviant a protected class.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Did you just tell me enough? I'll decide if and when to post or not to post, and about what. Thanks, I've read the documents and I saw how some of the races were viewed. It was in a word, unfortunate. All that had to be done to make things right was for the rest of us to be inclusive with the applications of the language and starting in 1863 with no small amount of slings and arrows it was problem solved. That is until Democrats saw an opportunity to use black people as vote farms. Further, I don't know about you but I've known quite a few women who just would not accept responsibility for their own miscues. Hillary being the apex denier to that regard. So, I can sort of see why initially women were not allowed to vote and hold office. :biggrin:

But since you want to go there, I'll oblige. It was the Democrats who would not be reasonable with regard to the slave situation. Abraham Lincoln and those who agreed with him formed the Republican Party in opposition to those who would not abate their stance on slavery.

Thus it was not a geographical issue, north versus south according to the rationale of the Rebel Flag, the south and her plantations. The climate dictated the location of the plantations, the politicians dictated the climate of the government.

That does not mitigate the effectiveness and wisdom of the Constitution. Nor does it give license to make changes for light and transient causes. And BTW, if you can't see the big picture with regard to the survival of this nation I for one am thankful that you only have one vote. You can't use perceived injustices from a century and a half ago to validate things like making the sexually deviant a protected class.

The "enough" was directed at the waxing nostalgic over some perceived era of glorious virtue at the time of the forefathers. That was all.

That you are hitching the survival of the nation to Donald Trump defeating Hillary Clinton surprises me, and I am quite sure puts you in a precarious position visa vis prophecy.

Two consenting adults seeking the designation "married," is, for the State, a matter of equal protection. For the Church, it is a matter of sin. The two are not the same and do not have the same function nor purpose.

We ignore the facts and lessons of history at our own peril.

I do not wish to comment on your remark about women.

[TheRealThing]

The "enough" was directed at the waxing nostalgic over some perceived era of glorious virtue at the time of the forefathers. That was all.

That you are hitching the survival of the nation to Donald Trump defeating Hillary Clinton surprises me, and I am quite sure puts you in a precarious position visa vis prophecy.

Two consenting adults seeking the designation "married," is, for the State, a matter of equal protection. For the Church, it is a matter of sin. The two are not the same and do not have the same function nor purpose.

We ignore the facts and lessons of history at our own peril.

I do not wish to comment on your remark about women.

Well, we revise history at our own peril that's for sure. Equal protection was extended to the homosexual long before gay marriage was granted under the Equal Protection clause and you know it. The gay marriage edict handed down by the court was every bit the travesty as was Roe v Wade. I mean, granting women the right to murder their unborn or just born children under the auspices of the right of privacy is absurd beyond belief.

To start with, getting married is not a right guaranteed under the US Constitution. States grant marriages based on the definition of marriage as seen in the Scriptures. Genesis 2:23-25 (KJV)
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

The Equal Protection Clause was meant to protect the rights of groups and individuals. Marriage is not protected under Equal Protection any more than abortion is protected under the Right to Privacy. But in the case of gay marriage, the court had to redefine the institution which God Himself set up between earth's first two inhabitants. When the state recognized the homosexual union as legal, it extended validity to a Biblically forbidden state of sexual depravity. Liberals are all tore to pieces about the wall of separation between Church and state, that is until it's time for the state to redefine an institution like marriage, which God clearly set up at least 6,000 years ago. At that point a little state invasion into the business of the Church via jurisdictional overlap is perfectly understandable. :please: