|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 27, 2018 13:51:05 GMT -5
Most elections it is not who I vote for as much as who I vote against.
No way in the world would I have ever voted for Obama or Hillary, although I was not all that enthused about the folks running against them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 14:14:38 GMT -5
Most elections it is not who I vote for as much as who I vote against. No way in the world would I have ever voted for Obama or Hillary, although I was not all that enthused about the folks running against them. More and more this is the case. But if you think about it, the more moral decay we have in America, and our candidates are coming from our citizenry...they all seem to understand the Constitution less, and, appear to be more and more morally and ethically bankrupt.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 27, 2018 14:35:18 GMT -5
Republicans ignore the Constitution just as much as the domocrats do...
My litmus test for voting is guns. If a candidate can't pass that test they can't get my vote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 14:42:03 GMT -5
Republicans ignore the Constitution just as much as the domocrats do... My litmus test for voting is guns. If a candidate can't pass that test they can't get my vote. <iframe width="18.720000000000027" height="3.5600000000000023" style="position: absolute; width: 18.720000000000027px; height: 3.5600000000000023px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_93523212" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="18.720000000000027" height="3.5600000000000023" style="position: absolute; width: 18.72px; height: 3.56px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 881px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_99460085" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="18.720000000000027" height="3.5600000000000023" style="position: absolute; width: 18.72px; height: 3.56px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 118px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_55130940" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="18.720000000000027" height="3.5600000000000023" style="position: absolute; width: 18.72px; height: 3.56px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 881px; top: 118px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_63009725" scrolling="no"></iframe> I guess I would need some examples of how the GOP have disregarded the Constitution as much as demon-crats...
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 27, 2018 15:08:33 GMT -5
I'd rather not with a man who thinks his fellow Americans are evil and mentally inferior because their ideals are different than his own.
Years ago I would have enjoyed that game but not anymore..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2018 15:10:26 GMT -5
I'd rather not with a man who thinks his fellow Americans are evil and mentally inferior because their ideals are different than his own. Years ago I would have enjoyed that game but not anymore.. Kinda what I expected. All I wanted was an example or two. It`s really easy to make claims when you don`t need to give any specifics. And yeah, I get kinda testy when people want our nation to be overrun with illegal invaders. I`m not the only one. You take care now.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 27, 2018 15:11:29 GMT -5
Lol...keep it up and I'll make an exception just for you.
Have a wonderful day.
|
|
|
Post by blackmouthcur on Oct 28, 2018 1:06:42 GMT -5
I wonder if that’s what the Native Americans thought when they saw the first Europeans. Hmm?
|
|
|
Post by Pinoc on Oct 28, 2018 7:09:55 GMT -5
I wonder if that’s what the Native Americans thought when they saw the first Europeans. Hmm? At first the Native Americans were accepting and allowed the Europeans in willingly and then things went bad for them. Look where that got them. Hmm?
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 28, 2018 7:44:53 GMT -5
I'm all for legal immigration and I'm also all for securing our border and stopping illegal immigration.
We are a young country and a melting pot of persons from around the globe. No national language. No national religion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 9:15:45 GMT -5
Immigration without assimilation, is an invasion.
John Hagee
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 28, 2018 9:26:07 GMT -5
No national language. No national religion.
Our Founding Fathers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 11:45:51 GMT -5
It's true that there is no national religion, no national language, but, don`t be deceived. The First Amendment reads thus:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It has to be noted, that no where in a single founding document is there any language at all that specifically states, or infers, any so called, “separation of church and state”. That phrase came from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1801. With the formation of the new United States government after the Revolutionary War, the Danbury Baptists were concerned about their ability to worship freely, and were afraid that the new United States government may mandate a form of worship as had King George III, and the British Crown. In their letter to Jefferson, they said this:
“Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty‐‐that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals‐‐that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions‐‐that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men‐‐should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.”
So then, the Danbury Baptists were very concerned that the new government might mandate a “state religion” to which Jefferson replied:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ʺmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,ʺ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
That is the only place you`ll ever read a single thing about the so called “separation of church and state”. It's not in a single founding document. Not in the Declaration of Independence, not in the Constitution, not in the Bill of Rights, and as far as I`ve seen, not in a single page of the Federalist Papers. And it must be noted that, two days after he sent the letter, he attended a church service conducted in the House of Representatives. This is fact, and can be verified by simply researching online.
There is a certain group of people, based in a certain social and political ideology, that seek to pervert both the meaning, and intent of the First Amendment so much so, that, it might be construed to a meaning entirely opposite of that which it was intended to represent. If one were to simply read the First Amendment, it says what it means, and it means what it says. Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a state religion. Very straightforward, very understandable, even to the least read person. But the subtle lies and innuendo of the serpent sneak in, and those who are uninformed, those who know nothing of the Founders, nothing of the intent of the creators of this government except what they`ve been spoon-fed by the liberal, so called, media, easily and gladly buy into the lies. Some try to claim that America was not founded as a Christian nation. This is laughable. The Founders were made up of the very people who fled England, the Pilgrims were separatist Puritans, who left England for the sole purpose of being able to worship freely, and not be held to the state mandated religion of England. In fact, worship services were held in the very place where the Continental Congress gathered to do the People`s work. Not only did the men who made up the founding government of the new United State freely worship, and in the place where the government worked, they demonstrated their true intent. That although the new government would not mandate a state sponsored form of worship, they did indeed feel free, and justified in openly participating in their preferred type and form of worship, because it was not a state mandated religion, but instead, simply government worshipping freely in their chosen form. There is a huge difference in a state mandated worship, and our Christian based government exercising their own freedom of worship. Yet, those who are against any mention at all of the Name of the Lord, Jesus Christ, scream that this so called, “separation of church and state”, must be enforce. That is nowhere in the Constitution, period.
As to the statement that there is no national language: that's true…to a point. English is the primary language of the United States, and there`s nothing in any law or founding document that would interfere with the Republic specifying English as the national official language. Many of us would support this, and in fact, it would save the taxpayers a lot of money in the form of duplicate documents in many languages, as well as, simplify federal and state and local operations. For as long as America has accepted legal immigrants, it has been with the expectation that these legal immigrants not only assimilate into American culture and society, but that they be independent, that is to say, self-reliant, and not dependent upon handouts from the U.S. taxpayer. My, how times have changed.
The lies of the left have to be addressed, as many times, and in as many ways as it takes for the truth to be made known in regards to what the law of the land states, what it's intent is, and the actual, and factual history of the nation, and the men who founded this great nation.
As the Pledge of Allegiance says, “One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice, for all. And as our currency so clearly states: “In God we trust”.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 28, 2018 12:37:58 GMT -5
An exception was made and an example was given ...
Shall we move to the government's role in who can and cannot marry each other?
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 28, 2018 12:53:40 GMT -5
Back to the original question of - Mike Braun or Joe Donnelly?
Braun has finally polled a little better than Donnelly.. not much but a glimmer of hope that Donnelly will be an ex=senator come January
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 28, 2018 13:53:24 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 14:19:44 GMT -5
Remember Due Process. Just because someone might have been arbitrarily placed on some government "watch list", like the no fly, they cannot have their Second Amendment rights rescinded without Due Process. And Due Process says, you have your day in court before your rights may be taken away, not take your rights away, then have to prove in court that you`re entitled to them. American Jurisprudence says we have a presumption of innocence, unless and until proven guilty. Demand that rights be preserved and protected from an overbearing government.
|
|
|
Post by greyhair on Oct 28, 2018 18:06:55 GMT -5
Is there a "none of the above"? I am no Donnelly fan, but Mike Braun is just another millionaire that has no concept of how we live. He too does business with China, and is more interested in himself than in us. He will be just like so many others of both parties. He won't work for our interests.
We need a viable third party that would put true public servants in office.
But I suppose that is a pipe dream
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 22:02:09 GMT -5
Is there a "none of the above"? I am no Donnelly fan, but Mike Braun is just another millionaire that has no concept of how we live. He too does business with China, and is more interested in himself than in us. He will be just like so many others of both parties. He won't work for our interests. We need a viable third party that would put true public servants in office. But I suppose that is a pipe dream There is a 3rd option the libertarian candidate isnt half bad from what I've seen. But she is such a long shot that a vote for her at this point would basically benefit donnely.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Oct 29, 2018 9:48:09 GMT -5
And again the argument that the third party candidate who seems to support most of our same opinions about government won't get our vote because they're not going to get enough other peoples' votes to "win".
Should we toss our bows in the trash and take up golf instead because there are more golfers than bowhunters?
Eat only white bread because it's so much more popular than whole wheat?
The Republican Party was a minority party prior to the 1860 election.
Free choice is intended to work that way. It implies that if a better alternative is offered there will be enough people who choose it that it will BECOME a choice popular enough to be a viable contender in the marketplace, even if it's not pre-sold before the market even opens.
The Libertarian Party has been around for almost fifty years and has increased in popularity almost every election cycle. It has always had a platform of lower taxes, less government overreach into our lives, and less entanglement in foreign wars. A return to a constitutional government is also a strong plank in their platform as is unwavering support of the Second Amendment, as written.
Really guys, it's OK to vote your conscience even if "all the other guys" are going with the "lesser of two weevils" 8^)
|
|