Tea Party Whacko crapping on the constitution
- Thread starter WhiteTailEER
- Start date
A Christians morals come from the Holy Spirit. You want us to say the Bible. Then you will say we should be killing witches and homosexuals.
But you do not understand the Law given to Israel and the salvation provided by the sacrifice of Jesus.
But you do not understand the Law given to Israel and the salvation provided by the sacrifice of Jesus.
Okay, Christian morals come from the Holy Spirit. But Christians in the same time have different morals and Christians across different times especially have different morals. Which is right and how do we know which is right?
The reality is that each Christian decides for him/herself what Christian morals come from the Holy Spirit and they believe that it is the Holy Spirit that is providing the morals and yet it is him/herself that is deciding what those morals that they believe come from the Holy Spirit are.
The reality is that each Christian decides for him/herself what Christian morals come from the Holy Spirit and they believe that it is the Holy Spirit that is providing the morals and yet it is him/herself that is deciding what those morals that they believe come from the Holy Spirit are.
the hypocrisy of this post is hilarious
When someone pointed out something a ridiculous politician from maine did you got on your hugh horse and scolded everyone for suggesting one person represents a party. I guess when you disagree with a crazy person your earlier stance is jull and void. Congrats on being a massive hypocrite.
When someone pointed out something a ridiculous politician from maine did you got on your hugh horse and scolded everyone for suggesting one person represents a party. I guess when you disagree with a crazy person your earlier stance is jull and void. Congrats on being a massive hypocrite.
hypocrisy
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
2) I have not made any such claim in this post. Not once have I suggested that this person represents everybody on the right. Not once. What I have said is that since this person is on the right WVPATX won't admit that this person is wrong. Which is not a hypocritical statement, it is true, as he still has not admitted this is wrong, he has just continually deflected the subject.
Your point is completely invalid. And your only point was a personal attack. Thank you for contributing what you could to the conversation.
EDIT: It took me awhile to even remember what I would have said about any Maine politician. Now I recall that the politician in question made some kind of comment that Obama's family were ISIS members or something like that. If I "got on my hugh horse" (I don't have a horse, but if I did I would probably name it Mable or Cecil, but certainly not Hugh) scolding anybody for suggesting one person represents a party it would have been in defense of those on the right.
So, your point is even more invalid than I originally thought. SSWWWIIIIIIINNNGGG and a miss!!
This post was edited on 3/30 9:14 AM by WhiteTailEER
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
1) I didn't scold anybody, and if you want to claim I did, it would have only been the one person that suggested that the ridiculous politician from Maine represented the whole party or the whole side. Further, I probably admonished what the Maine politician said (I don't remember the issue you are referring to)
2) I have not made any such claim in this post. Not once have I suggested that this person represents everybody on the right. Not once. What I have said is that since this person is on the right WVPATX won't admit that this person is wrong. Which is not a hypocritical statement, it is true, as he still has not admitted this is wrong, he has just continually deflected the subject.
Your point is completely invalid. And your only point was a personal attack. Thank you for contributing what you could to the conversation.
EDIT: It took me awhile to even remember what I would have said about any Maine politician. Now I recall that the politician in question made some kind of comment that Obama's family were ISIS members or something like that. If I "got on my hugh horse" (I don't have a horse, but if I did I would probably name it Mable or Cecil, but certainly not Hugh) scolding anybody for suggesting one person represents a party it would have been in defense of those on the right.
So, your point is even more invalid than I originally thought. SSWWWIIIIIIINNNGGG and a miss!!
This post was edited on 3/30 9:14 AM by WhiteTailEER
Countyroads89..... Again, let me ask you one more time...
How is it "unconstitutional" BEFORE it was EVEN enacted as a LAW and NO COURT ever deemed it "unconstitutional". It appears you are the one deficient in "Reading comprehension" skills. Show me where the words; "I must have missed the part that stated a state law was passed" And you may want to look in the mirror if you want to see a "moron". You are nothing but a narrow minded hate filled ignorant partisan hack. I hope you are not as STUPID as you appear based on you belief that a PROPOSED law is "unconstitutional" BEFORE ANY COURT ruled it so.
This post was edited on 3/30 4:41 PM by bornaneer
How is it "unconstitutional" BEFORE it was EVEN enacted as a LAW and NO COURT ever deemed it "unconstitutional". It appears you are the one deficient in "Reading comprehension" skills. Show me where the words; "I must have missed the part that stated a state law was passed" And you may want to look in the mirror if you want to see a "moron". You are nothing but a narrow minded hate filled ignorant partisan hack. I hope you are not as STUPID as you appear based on you belief that a PROPOSED law is "unconstitutional" BEFORE ANY COURT ruled it so.
This post was edited on 3/30 4:41 PM by bornaneer
Re: Countyroads89..... Again, let me ask you one more time...
It doesn't have to pass and have Supreme Court judgment to know that it would be unconstitutional. Anybody that lives in this country with even a minimal understanding of the constitution and an ounce of sense would know that.
Are you honestly suggesting a law mandating people attend church would be constitutional? Or could possibly be deemed constitutional?
It doesn't have to pass and have Supreme Court judgment to know that it would be unconstitutional. Anybody that lives in this country with even a minimal understanding of the constitution and an ounce of sense would know that.
Re: Countyroads89..... Again, let me ask you one more time...
I gave up already; it's impossible to talk common sense to the guy.
I gave up already; it's impossible to talk common sense to the guy.
I do NOT believe it would ever be declared constitutional. You are...
MISSING the whole point. If it SOMEHOW was passed into law, it would be law UNTIL it was ruled "unconstitutional". Think.....think....think. Also PLEASE show my words THAT said I thought it would pass court ruling and be deemed constitutional. I'm sure you are aware that MANY laws were passed that were later ruled "unconstitutional". As usual you have turned this into a rant attacking anyone associated with the "R" word.
MISSING the whole point. If it SOMEHOW was passed into law, it would be law UNTIL it was ruled "unconstitutional". Think.....think....think. Also PLEASE show my words THAT said I thought it would pass court ruling and be deemed constitutional. I'm sure you are aware that MANY laws were passed that were later ruled "unconstitutional". As usual you have turned this into a rant attacking anyone associated with the "R" word.
Wow ... Pot, meet kettle
I don't attack anybody associated with the "R" word. Go back through my posts and you'll find me critical of anybody (Cruz, Hilary, Obama, Imhoffe) regardless of political affiliation.
If countryroads were more right leaning, you wouldn't have said anything about his post. Instead you get into a silly little semantic argument over it. Why? Solely because it's him and solely because he's the "D" word.
I don't attack anybody associated with the "R" word. Go back through my posts and you'll find me critical of anybody (Cruz, Hilary, Obama, Imhoffe) regardless of political affiliation.
Show me where my broader point was invalid......
and let's stop pretending where we both lean. I lean right and you lean far left. You also may want to check how your liberal friends likes to attack posters when they CORRECTLY point out how laws, rightly or wrongly enacted, are dealt with. I usually don't start with the name calling, but I will respond in kind. In case you cannot understand my point, try researching laws like numerous Jim Crow laws. In case you can't figure it out, please realize that many of them were laws before they were repealed or ruled to be unconstitutional.
and let's stop pretending where we both lean. I lean right and you lean far left. You also may want to check how your liberal friends likes to attack posters when they CORRECTLY point out how laws, rightly or wrongly enacted, are dealt with. I usually don't start with the name calling, but I will respond in kind. In case you cannot understand my point, try researching laws like numerous Jim Crow laws. In case you can't figure it out, please realize that many of them were laws before they were repealed or ruled to be unconstitutional.
Re: hypocrisy
I know what it means and you are a huge one. Of course you are going to deny it. You hate hypocrites until someone points out you are one.
Now whine some more about personal attacks and deflect attention away from your character flaws.
I know what it means and you are a huge one. Of course you are going to deny it. You hate hypocrites until someone points out you are one.
Now whine some more about personal attacks and deflect attention away from your character flaws.
Re: hypocrisy
And in this case, you are accusing me of being a hypocrite, but I flat out did not say the thing that you claim I said that shows I'm a hypocrite.
And, once again, even if I HAD said what you claim I said, it still wouldn't make me a hypocrite because at no point in this thread did I ever mention that the views of the senator represented everybody on the right. The only thing that I did say was that because she is on the right that WVPATX won't admit to what she said as being wrong. There is absolutely nothing hypocritical in that either because I have mentioned many things that people on the left have said/done that were also wrong.
If I tell somebody not to smoke and then smoke a cigarette, that's hypocrisy.
If I tell somebody not to smoke and then have a beer, that's not hypocrisy.
I'm sorry you can't tell the difference.
You clearly don't know what it means because each time you've tried accusing me of being one has been with examples of things that are not equivalent.
And in this case, you are accusing me of being a hypocrite, but I flat out did not say the thing that you claim I said that shows I'm a hypocrite.
And, once again, even if I HAD said what you claim I said, it still wouldn't make me a hypocrite because at no point in this thread did I ever mention that the views of the senator represented everybody on the right. The only thing that I did say was that because she is on the right that WVPATX won't admit to what she said as being wrong. There is absolutely nothing hypocritical in that either because I have mentioned many things that people on the left have said/done that were also wrong.
If I tell somebody not to smoke and then smoke a cigarette, that's hypocrisy.
If I tell somebody not to smoke and then have a beer, that's not hypocrisy.
I'm sorry you can't tell the difference.