dmcoco84

Sorry, but I have to disagree wholeheartedly. And why is that?

We need to repeal the 17th Amendment... badly.

Barf. Do you own your body, or the government; after God?

I did a search ... while I did find some accusations that he'd had sex with underage girls, I find no reference to him even being charged with any manner of sex offense, much less being convicted of any. Do you have further specific information of him being charged and convicted of a sex offense? Likewise. I call major BS.

Ron = FAIL! Ron... who owns your body after God?

Moses... God assigned no punishments; Moses did. Agree?

They are not my opinions or definitions, jakee... Just like with "Democracy" in the other thread: What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form? Were an answer to this question to be sought, not by recurring to principles, but in the application of the term by political writers, to the constitution of different States, no satisfactory one would ever be found. Holland, in which no particle of the supreme authority is derived from the people, has passed almost universally under the denomination of a republic. The same title has been bestowed on Venice, where absolute power over the great body of the people is exercised, in the most absolute manner, by a small body of hereditary nobles. Poland, which is a mixture of aristocracy and of monarchy in their worst forms, has been dignified with the same appellation. The government of England, which has one republican branch only, combined with an hereditary aristocracy and monarchy, has, with equal impropriety, been frequently placed on the list of republics. These examples, which are nearly as dissimilar to each other as to a genuine republic, show the extreme inaccuracy with which the term has been used in political disquisitions. Federalist 39

Anyone find better images than attached? I can't make out everything...

The answer to that depends on who you ask. A religious person would say God did. I would say that ancient clerics did. A religious person would say God did. ---- I disagree. I would say that ancient clerics did. ---- Any specificity there?

OK... so, WHO assigned this/these punishments? Has nothing to do with the 10 Commandments.

Yeeeeeeees... Forget Jesus; if he even existed, he wasn't born when the 10 Commandments came about. From your knowledge and understanding... is that the punishment or not? There ARE punishments for breaking each of the commandments, right?

I suppose so. Certain sects obviously have other "laws" that they enforce, but I guess the big 10 are generally the same. Things like the golden rule are more like guidelines. And, of course Christians like to pick and choose which Levitican laws they like. Suppose so is good enough... keep it simple. So... lucky number 7: Adultery. If a women commits adultery, the punishment is for her to be stoned, right?

Would you agree that a Jew and Christian, would say that the 10 Commandments are "God's Law"?

Sorry... I'm not going to (keep) argue(ing) the stupid bull shit that has been argued above and in the DOMA thread

It is the same exact thing I have said over and over... you just have no concept of what a progressive is, regardless of everything I have continually posted. Goes in one ear and out the other... nor have you read, American Progressivism: A Reader. Perfect example of a man who calls himself a conservative ---- H(F)uckabee; would force his Christianity on others - homosexuality and abortion issues - where he is called a social conservative because of it... except in reality, by ideological classification, he is a progressive. Just with an R... like Teddy; who started their party, and was the first President of the ideology. Where now, there is no progressive party... because they have infected both parties; wherein, we technically have one party, as desired. P.S... Read the beginning of Federalist 39, about terminology. I'm right... and you're a low information voter.

Totally understandable. That is very reasonable... the Bible did the same for me. And I pissed off a shit load of counselors at Triple R Ranch when I debated them at Bible talk times in our cabins; went for the horses, not the religion, but enjoyed the information. I pissed off a lot of preachers and priests too, when I went to the various church's of different denominations; both from parents and friends. What types of questions arose that went unanswered? With this being said, would you agree that a Jew and Christian, would say that the 10 Commandments are "God's Law"?

Your thread title is ridiculous. Not only reading their own website mission statement, but in reading wiki too... "The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) is a US-based conservative pressure group. It describes itself as "a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.".[1] C-Fam was founded in 1997 and promotes the view that "the UN and other international institutions harm a true understanding of international law and in the process undermine the family and other institutions man requires for a just, free and happy life."[2]" They are conservative only if the mean is... Christian. Social Conservative... means Progressive Republican. Progressivism and U.S. Constitutionalism are antithetical. Your thread title is yet another example of why Washington was against parties. So some bigots who are christian are praising a tyrant and his country who are against homosexuals... Big Deal; that's not "Conservative." Stop continuing the D VS R game that Progressives have created.

Why were you not a believer at the time? Were you ever? If not... why did you do everything you did, aside from doing what a Catholic would do that is not really practicing, but, for example, doing enough to keep their family happy. Not what I was getting at.

How were you raised? What did your parents believe (the basics), teach you, and what type of church(s) did they bring you to, or introduce you to? Christian is not a sufficient answer; if you desire to answer.

Douche Bags. First... Douche Bags. Second... Why the hell did he let them search his car; especially if he DIDN'T have drugs? This is not probable cause... ... Douche Bags.

Wrong. Read Federalist 39 and then re-read what you wrote.

That statement makes absolutely no sense... ESPECIALLY if you read the Federalist Papers.

Stupidity... equally as stupid saying the 3/5ths clause was racist.

Yow- you know the GOP has really lost its compass when it writes off Ron as "that fucking RINO." I am equally tired of that term... And he isn't a RINO. He is a Progressive.

I've posted plenty of my sources. And after 100 years of Progressive degradation of Founding Principles (and everything explained in the Federalist Papers)... its not surprising that a dictionary is wrong about something the Progressives would want to manipulate so that "the people" couldn't simply open a dictionary and get the truth. Wikipedia is just as useless... though, not for things like medical questions. Look at dictionary.com... my favorite dictionary: its far worse! 2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. 3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. Um, No.