[mr.fundamental]

The republican party will always run to these two issues to stir the base up.

I wanted to start a thread to set the record straight. The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, said that a woman has a right to choose. We all know this simple fact. However, I am betting that you did not know that was a Conservative Supreme Court that made this ruling. Here are the list of judges and who appointed them

Judges: Stewart/ Eisenhower ®
Powell/Nixon ®
Marshall/Johnson (d)
Blackmum/Nixon ®
Burger/Nixon ®
Douglas/Rosevelt (d)
Brennon/Eisenhower ®


I will do another post later on Gay Marriage...

Just thought you would like to know!

[TheRealThing]

The republican party will always run to these two issues to stir the base up.

I wanted to start a thread to set the record straight. The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, said that a woman has a right to choose. We all know this simple fact. However, I am betting that you did not know that was a Conservative Supreme Court that made this ruling. Here are the list of judges and who appointed them

Judges: Stewart/ Eisenhower ®
Powell/Nixon ®
Marshall/Johnson (d)
Blackmum/Nixon ®
Burger/Nixon ®
Douglas/Rosevelt (d)
Brennon/Eisenhower ®


I will do another post later on Gay Marriage...

Just thought you would like to know!

Wrong!!! The sins you mention are expressly forbidden and particularly loathsome to The Creator. I don't have to worry about Republican Justices who were or are there by appointment. If they choose to violate God's law that's their problem. But you go ahead and vote for politicians who promise to continue the butchery of the innocents.

[mr.fundamental]

Does butchery of the innocents include using a condom or masturbation?

[mr.fundamental]

I can not help what republicans have stood for... also did they not have the supreme Court in the 2000s?

If they did... why not overturn? Could it be possible to be used to get folks all worked up and to get votes?

[Ballmom1]

Does butchery of the innocents include using a condom or masturbation?

I don't believe either of these practices lead to a viable fetes that you could cut up and sell to the highest bidder.

[TheRealThing]

Does butchery of the innocents include using a condom or masturbation?

^^ More ridiculous anti-logic from the left. Let me ask you a question there tvtimeout, do sperm cells or unfertilized ova have heartbeats? :please: The average male produces over 500 billion sperm cells over the course of his lifetime, and his body casts off about a billion sperm cells each month as the result of God's own natural design. There is nothing precious or noteworthy about unused sperm or unfertilized ova. Just as there is nothing of substance in such a ridiculous argument.

[jetpilot]

Does butchery of the innocents include using a condom or masturbation?

Stupid beyond words.

[Bob Seger]

Stupid beyond words.

Stupid is as Stupid does.

[mr.fundamental]

so I take it no one is catholic that has posted on this... just checking

[mr.fundamental]

but back to the point... conservatives hold out to some moral authority, have the court to change, and in the past still had it to change, again nothing changes... except they did change the idea of marriage... again a conservative court did this.

So the only thing you can do? Is say I am right on the history, or try to change topic, distract, or come up with some theory of why it went down that way, and blame democrats probably Hillary Clinton or President Obama for it, or come after me.

The one thing you can not say is that I am wrong. So I say again and again, a conservative court voted FOR GAY marriage and ROE V.WADE

Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Winter Solstice!

[TheRealThing]

^^ Say it with your last breath, that doesn't make it factual.


AS TO GAY MARRIAGE---
"Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by the court’s four liberal justices: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan."

Kennedy is a California born RINO at the very best, but is in all likelihood, a liberal. So no, a Republican court did not give us same sex marriage. And I say 'give' in the sense one would give another typhoid.

And regardless of what you say, no conservative GAVE us legalized abortion.

[WideRight05]

You can't be serious. You actually think that just because somebody has an "R" beside their name that they're conservative? Using your logic, then does "D" automatically mean liberal? Conservatism vs. liberalism wasn't nearly the issue it is now at the time of Roe v. Wade. What you didn't mention is that one of the dissenting judges, Byron White - appointed by Democrat JFK - often gave pro-life votes in the SCOTUS. He was also one of the dissenting judges in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which by a 5-4 vote upheld Roe v. Wade.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who was one of the court's most liberal justices, was appointed by Republican Gerald Ford. Here I had it wrong this whole time, I should've known because Ford appointed him that he was conservative.

It's hard to take this seriously, you're more here just trying to get a rise out of the conservative base here.

[Hoot Gibson]

but back to the point... conservatives hold out to some moral authority, have the court to change, and in the past still had it to change, again nothing changes... except they did change the idea of marriage... again a conservative court did this.

So the only thing you can do? Is say I am right on the history, or try to change topic, distract, or come up with some theory of why it went down that way, and blame democrats probably Hillary Clinton or President Obama for it, or come after me.

The one thing you can not say is that I am wrong. So I say again and again, a conservative court voted FOR GAY marriage and ROE V.WADE

Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Winter Solstice!

You are wrong - demonstrably so. There is a long history of conservative presidents believing that they have appointed conservative, originalist jurists to the Supreme Court, who are, or evolve into activist judges. The Court that rendered the Roe v. Wade decision was not a conservative court, and repeating a lie until your face turns blue will not make your statement factual.

[Granny Bear]

but back to the point... conservatives hold out to some moral authority, have the court to change, and in the past still had it to change, again nothing changes... except they did change the idea of marriage... again a conservative court did this.

So the only thing you can do? Is say I am right on the history, or try to change topic, distract, or come up with some theory of why it went down that way, and blame democrats probably Hillary Clinton or President Obama for it, or come after me.

The one thing you can not say is that I am wrong. So I say again and again, a conservative court voted FOR GAY marriage and ROE V.WADE

Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Winter Solstice!

I just want to point out that you have three intelligent and articulate rebuttals to your statement ALL presented without any personal insults, even though they disagreed with your statements.

This needs to happen more often.

[jetpilot]

I just want to point out that you have three intelligent and articulate rebuttals to your statement ALL presented without any personal insults, even though they disagreed with your statements.

This needs to happen more often.

You're holding us to higher standards than the politicians and media types!
That's ok, I deleted the post where I called him a dumba$$.

:biggrin:

[Granny Bear]

Believe me, YOU were NOT in my mind when I posted that!!!

[TheRealThing]

You can't be serious. You actually think that just because somebody has an "R" beside their name that they're conservative? Using your logic, then does "D" automatically mean liberal? Conservatism vs. liberalism wasn't nearly the issue it is now at the time of Roe v. Wade. What you didn't mention is that one of the dissenting judges, Byron White - appointed by Democrat JFK - often gave pro-life votes in the SCOTUS. He was also one of the dissenting judges in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which by a 5-4 vote upheld Roe v. Wade.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who was one of the court's most liberal justices, was appointed by Republican Gerald Ford. Here I had it wrong this whole time, I should've known because Ford appointed him that he was conservative.

It's hard to take this seriously, you're more here just trying to get a rise out of the conservative base here.

Very good answer. ^^

I get the sense he's a true believer. Because if you ask me beginning mid 20th Century, the left began a moral migration which has carried them across a certain historic line. I believe many politicians from the days of the Clinton Era onward, have stretched the boundaries of what once constituted honorable dealings on behalf of their own constituents, and they did that for the cause of social justice. The tenets of which they consider worthy to supercede any Constitutional restrictions, or any voter-conferred mandate. Or better, for the sake of secular humanism. A force which requires an absence of Godly awe to grow, and is actually the absence of religion. Further, it is the product of man’s own pride and inflated sense of self worth, delusions under which he imagines himself to be inherently moral and wise. And thusly having turned his back on the sovereignty of God, prefers that his own wisdom is sufficient, owing to what he insists are the changing times. All of which in turn causes him to worship other men in whom are found the ever morphing solutions and answers the 'times' demand.

From that endless cycle cometh the present chaos, revisionist recklessness and continual state of dispute.

But the left's war had been moving at a snail's pace. And lacking an adequate argument to sway the people quickly, and in order to defeat any supportive feelings of country or nationalism or patriotism, the afore mentioned amoral adherents of social justice have used identity politics as a wedge to drive "the people" as far apart as possible. The old divide and conquer. Identity politics as were exploited in Hitler's day, in an effort to manufacture some sort of moral appearing shroud behind which to operate. And in the US we see the resultant devastation at every level of our culture. Even the NFL has been politicized and become corrupted. But where Hitler had his eye on world domination by force, the progressives have their eye on world domination by a sort of hokey secular humanistic movement.

To wit, you're talking about a voting base that STILL wants Hillary in there, even though there is more verifiable evidence of wrongdoing than likely every US President in history combined. And she accumulated that remarkably unfortunate baggage while serving in lower posts. Imagine if she actually had gotten elected President.

In fact and in general, and if one can believe the media to any degree, the hands of the Obama administration are so dirty it will take 7 more years just to define the extent of the subversion and identities of the culprits. There is small wonder that the 'resistance' is so rabidly daring, they’ve bet all that they have on the ’transformation.’ The sides are therefore well defined as it were, and so to your point.

The converts of the 'transformation' will say or do anything to avoid further exposure and loss of power, thus the deception you have observed in his talking points. Talking points which if repeated often enough will sway some of the people. While on the other hand, conservative anti-revisionist traditionalists, seek only to counter the propaganda and preserve the Republic in the form and vision of the Founders. I agree with your post in other words, I just think the disagreement as it exists between the two bases, is so fundamental at the root of our society that it has been with us since the days of the Founders. And I believe that was the central lament of Ben Franklin’s answer to the lady who had asked, following the Constitutional Convention, what it was that we “the people” had attained?

“Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”. Mr. Franklin replied, “A republic, madam – if you can keep it.”

In such conflict, continual strife and personal responsibility, is found the true nature of self-governance. And at it’s heart there cannot be a people who're willful victims of circumstance, completely dependent on a government with a record of buying voter allegiance.

[mr.fundamental]

This is so interesting to me, I point out that conservative court made Roe V. Wade legal and gay marriage legal. I am told this is incorrect that it was not a conservative court. I point out political registration and I am told that does not matter either. Well, I would think based upon the many posts in here that most would consider Ronald Reagan a conservative and he appointed the Supreme Court Judge who was the deciding vote in the gay marriage.

So, in the last election cycle, I heard my friends say we need to hold our nose and vote for trump to overturn the Roe V. Wade decision. If I follow the logic, this should have never been a reason to vote for Trump, because it does not matter.

Got it!

[mr.fundamental]

You are wrong - demonstrably so. There is a long history of conservative presidents believing that they have appointed conservative, originalist jurists to the Supreme Court, who are, or evolve into activist judges. The Court that rendered the Roe v. Wade decision was not a conservative court, and repeating a lie until your face turns blue will not make your statement factual.

I am sorry but will you list the Supreme Court Justices that voted for Roe V. Wade and their political affiliation please?

Also, will you list the Supreme Court Justices that made Gay Marriage legal and their political affiliation please?

[WideRight05]

This is so interesting to me, I point out that conservative court made Roe V. Wade legal and gay marriage legal. I am told this is incorrect that it was not a conservative court. I point out political registration and I am told that does not matter either. Well, I would think based upon the many posts in here that most would consider Ronald Reagan a conservative and he appointed the Supreme Court Judge who was the deciding vote in the gay marriage.

So, in the last election cycle, I heard my friends say we need to hold our nose and vote for trump to overturn the Roe V. Wade decision. If I follow the logic, this should have never been a reason to vote for Trump, because it does not matter.

Got it!

This is where you're not considering the events at the time of Kennedy's nomination. Democrats had a 55-45 advantage in the Senate after winning it back during the 1986 elections. Kennedy was Reagan's third choice. Robert Bork was his first but in typical fashion these days Dems used the race card to scare the Senate away from voting for Bork. They managed to pull a few moderate Republicans on board with them although a couple of Dems did vote for Bork, something we would never see happen now. His second selection was Doug Ginsburg, no relation to Ruth. Dems went to the length of using marijuana he smoked in college (Which they're fighting for that "right" now) against him and due to the pressure of that he withdrew his name from the nomination. So now it's down to Kennedy.

Look, I used to troll these boards a lot when I posted more especially in the football threads. With that being said, abortion is nothing to troll about. This is nearly 60 million lives that have been lost. The combination of you posting on here about being a Christian but then defending abortion and the LGBT agenda is sick, and then judging us by saying that we don't help the poor - you don't know me or TRT or Hoot or Granny Bear or anyone else on this board - but yet accuse us of being judgmental with your constant accusations of us not caring about the poor despite not knowing a thing about us.

[TheRealThing]

This is so interesting to me, I point out that conservative court made Roe V. Wade legal and gay marriage legal. I am told this is incorrect that it was not a conservative court. I point out political registration and I am told that does not matter either. Well, I would think based upon the many posts in here that most would consider Ronald Reagan a conservative and he appointed the Supreme Court Judge who was the deciding vote in the gay marriage.

So, in the last election cycle, I heard my friends say we need to hold our nose and vote for trump to overturn the Roe V. Wade decision. If I follow the logic, this should have never been a reason to vote for Trump, because it does not matter.

Got it!

Well here tvtimeout, let me take one last stab at clearing it all up for you. Ever heard of a RINO? If you think Susan Collins, or John McCain, or Rob Portman, or Lisa Murkowski, are examples of conservatives just because they're in the Republican Party, you truly are one confused dude.

Presidents make choices to appoint conservatives to the court and sometimes they get it wrong. You know how it feels to get stuff wrong, right? But many times I believe Republicans have nominated people they felt were level headed moderates, so they could not be accused of trying to seed the court.

You might think you're smart enough to run that sneaky anti-Christian argument by us, but then that would be one of those times that you were wrong. Everybody knows, if you're looking for a professing Christian in the Congress you look for them among Republicans. And Christians DO NOT support abortion and gay rights. Democrats, other than lone Mohegan Dan Lipinski, ALL support abortion and gay marriage. Dems are the party of infanticide. No conservative court "gave us" abortion rights and "WideRight" has you "JustRight." Your ridiculous and weak defense of Dems, in that you have attempted to blame Republicans for propagating the sins of abortion and the gay lifestyle through the court is inexcusable. Republican: does not equal conservative, does not equal Christian. Though a good number of Republicans are thankfully, professing Christians. Satan is the God of this world and he is the author of confusion, death, and lies of the sort you're trying to fly past us on this forum.

Still interested?

[Granny Bear]

This is where you're not considering the events at the time of Kennedy's nomination. Democrats had a 55-45 advantage in the Senate after winning it back during the 1986 elections. Kennedy was Reagan's third choice. Robert Bork was his first but in typical fashion these days Dems used the race card to scare the Senate away from voting for Bork. They managed to pull a few moderate Republicans on board with them although a couple of Dems did vote for Bork, something we would never see happen now. His second selection was Doug Ginsburg, no relation to Ruth. Dems went to the length of using marijuana he smoked in college (Which they're fighting for that "right" now) against him and due to the pressure of that he withdrew his name from the nomination. So now it's down to Kennedy.

Look, I used to troll these boards a lot when I posted more especially in the football threads. With that being said, abortion is nothing to troll about. This is nearly 60 million lives that have been lost. The combination of you posting on here about being a Christian but then defending abortion and the LGBT agenda is sick, and then judging us by saying that we don't help the poor - you don't know me or TRT or Hoot or Granny Bear or anyone else on this board - but yet accuse us of being judgmental with your constant accusations of us not caring about the poor despite not knowing a thing about us.

Don't despair but keep in mind the person(s) with whom you are arguing.

There have been times when I have disagreed with every single poster in this forum. I actually like to post a different perspective or opposite opinion, so that I can hear my counterpart's debate and rationale that got them to their position. It's fun!! And I have learned so much. Sometimes, I've even changed my opinion. (i.e. Harry Rex Vonner)

But intelligent debate hasn't existed in this forum for quite some time. It cannot exist when you have people who restate what YOU have said, will not take ownership of what THEY have said, duck, dodge, defer and finally offer personal insults once they have nothing else.

For me, it isn't worth the effort.

Remember WideRight, a fool will bring you down to their level and beat you at their own game.

[TheRealThing]

Don't despair but keep in mind the person(s) with whom you are arguing.

There have been times when I have disagreed with every single poster in this forum. I actually like to post a different perspective or opposite opinion, so that I can hear my counterpart's debate and rationale that got them to their position. It's fun!! And I have learned so much. Sometimes, I've even changed my opinion. (i.e. Harry Rex Vonner)

But intelligent debate hasn't existed in this forum for quite some time. It cannot exist when you have people who restate what YOU have said, will not take ownership of what THEY have said, duck, dodge, defer and finally offer personal insults once they have nothing else.

For me, it isn't worth the effort.

Remember WideRight, a fool will bring you down to their level and beat you at their own game.

Lol :thatsfunn. I know one thing, if you don't want to step in the doo-doo stay out of that back hallway!! But on the other hand, those dogs only know one routine and their secret's out. :Thumbs:

[mr.fundamental]

Thank you all for answering my questions regarding these sensitive issues. I am glad to hear that this forum does not believe that when voting for the President, the Supreme Court nomination will not be a deciding factor. Have a great day.

[Granny Bear]

Oh no!!!

Thank YOU for proving my point.

[TheRealThing]

Thank you all for answering my questions regarding these sensitive issues. I am glad to hear that this forum does not believe that when voting for the President, the Supreme Court nomination will not be a deciding factor. Have a great day.

I think I see your problem. See, the Supreme Court of the United States does not make nominations. The process under which Mr Trump attained the nomination, is exactly the same (minus the cheating normally associated with anything the Democrats do of course), as the process under which Obama won his party nomination.

The jokers, traitors, dead beats, takers and willfully uninformed which make up the Democrat voting base need to get this one thing straight; Trump isn't going anywhere until his terms are up. And you're not going to impeach him or otherwise get rid of him because 'the people' won't stand for it. He WILL be reelected in 2020, and you've got 7 more glorious years to suffer until Mike Pence gets elected, upon which you will endure another yet another 8 years with a Republican White House. inglepar irateSho

Got an option to get you all through these trying times though, 'The Soap Opera Channel.' :biggrin:

[hitter]

Here's what I don't understand, if I go out and knowingly kill a pregnant woman and both die then I would be charged with double murder. What's the difference? Another thing is if you go by the constitution it says marriage is between a man and a woman. That's plain enough so if you truly believe in the constitution and America how can anyone go against that. That's almost like some in the government trying to take away our guns but the constitution says we have a right to bear arms. There is just pne way to interpret these things

[Motley]

Here's what I don't understand, if I go out and knowingly kill a pregnant woman and both die then I would be charged with double murder. What's the difference? Another thing is if you go by the constitution it says marriage is between a man and a woman. That's plain enough so if you truly believe in the constitution and America how can anyone go against that. That's almost like some in the government trying to take away our guns but the constitution says we have a right to bear arms. There is just pne way to interpret these things

Out of shear curiosity, where does it say marriage is between a man/woman in the Constitution? I must have missed that part somehow.

[WideRight05]

Out of shear curiosity, where does it say marriage is between a man/woman in the Constitution? I must have missed that part somehow.

Where does it say that the killing of an unborn child is a "right?"

[Motley]

Where does it say that the killing of an unborn child is a "right?"

I didn't say that it said that anywhere. Thanks for the completely off topic input though.

Once again, where is marriage defined in the Constitution? Because I can't find that part.