‘Change and Hope’ Turned Out to Mean 'Culture of Death’

"Constitutional law" and fascism (the governmental system whereby companies are privately owned but the production process is controlled by a centralized government entity) are mutually exclusive.

Do you really think that someone who values the Constitution would...

• expand abortion on demand;
• take over private companies;
• give the majority control of one failing company to a union who helped sink it;
• replace CEO's of private businesses;
• even consider nationalizing banks?

Get back with me if you think these behaviors somehow "support the Constitution," and I'll get you a copy to read.

 

Someone who has taught constitutional law and holds a PHD in it Dr. Alan Keyes woudl disagree with you and Obama.

 

Oh, I'm sorry. You must be right. I guess the Constitution only ensures rights to the rich, the majority, or the nastiest of all...<personal attack deleted - LE>.

Nope. It doesn't say that.

 

Thus proving the beauty of this country where everyone is allowed to have an opinion. Not just you.

 

"Rejoice when the world speaks evil of you", says the Lord.

And I do.:godisgood:

 

Good, then maybe you will learn to quit speaking ill of others on this forum. I edited your remark in a previous post. Personal attacks/innuendoes are not allowed on the Politics Forum and will be edited/deleted.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

One can't lecture on something they do not know.

So when I believed that Jesus loved me and let the Romans nail him to a tree I was delusional? Careful.

Oh come on, all you right wing rambos watch fox news. I don't have to "use Christ's name to make conservatives look bad." You all do just fine on your own. Don't tell me why I come here in a weak effort to get the attention off of your error. If you would rather insult me than to help me understand something then so be it. At least have the you know what to admit that's what you're doing.:BangHead:

 

Something tells me you'd rather I send a pm than say what I am thinking publicly.

Too bad. Did you take out the attacks made on me? Bet you didn't.

Oh...and you forgot to edit where the old man was calling people perverts.

 

Let's get back on topic, shall we?

Joe, you have 132 posts to your name as of this writing. You are new to the board and trying to debate with very seasoned, intelligent folk on this forum, those who have posts in the thousands. Do some research because the people on the Politics Forum are very, very well informed on liberal and conservative views of topics. Stick to the issues and you will learn a lot here and maybe some can learn from you.

Friendly advice: Don't take things so personal. This forum is not for those who get easily bent out of shape or for the faint of heart or those who get their buttons pushed easily. I'm just trying to help you out here, okay?

And let's get back on topic, all.

Thanks,
Lady Eagle
Moderator

 

Wrong again. Bristol Palin is now on a tour lecturing on abstinence, isn't she ?

You be careful. If you are going to throw Christ's name around, you better...

A) Have a very good reason.
B) Know what you are talking about.

You are the one insulting, dude. If I wanted to make you look bad, I would make a rude remark about a guy from the midwest fancying himself a surfer. I am not all that concerned about looking bad, but I am honest. I don't watch Fox News, but I also don't care if you believe me or not. A lot of liberals will throw out the "Fox News" claim when they have nothing else to bring to the discussion. But I do pretty well without the help of pseudo-conservatives like Hannity & O'Reilly.

 

Did you forget about the amber waves of grain?

 

Back on topic:

The Archbishop is right:

Obama is advancing the "Culture of Death."

Death for the unborn:
Death for the economy:
Death for the independance of property owners (to express their ownership and own and use their own resources), farmers, corporations, businesses great and small, and banks:
Death for individual freedom and sovereignty under the authority and accoountability to God.
Death for the rights of people to be represented and to chose where and how our money is spent.
Death to our power to determine how our local and state governments function without interference from Washington.

 

First of all, all the hits I see on google are conservative blogs so you can't consider them a factual source but as many times as I hear this part of his statement quoted, I never see his full statement.

He goes on to explain what he means by negative liberties by saying, "it explains what the states can't do to you. It explains what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the state or federal government must do on your behalf".

If you stand back and look at the constitution from a broader since, like the perspective of a law professor, he is absolutely right.

 

Did he go contrary to the constitution or did he say something you didn't clearly understand? From what I hear and read from conservatives, they don't know what he means by that statement. If that is the case, they don't know if it is contrary to the constitution or not.

Also, every president in history has had his own measuring stick when it came to selecting supreme court justices. Why should Obama be held to a different standard? Some one nominated Clearance Thomas... Need I say more?

 

Chances are you already have. You disagreed with der leader. :smilewinkgrin: