ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
k1kZFwZN1fj4.png
 
Ah, you have no burden of proving what you wrote as fact, but was mere opinion, because you can claim, without evidence, that you had “a look at societies through[out] history.” Yeah, I am sure you did. 🤣
Well, yeah. And (spoiler) they seem to all gravitate towards the biological parents being option 1 in ye olde structure of society, regardless of religion. East, West, you name it. It’s almost like it’s natural. Mind blowing, right?

I guess it’s opinion because nobody seems to have made any of this a fact yet with the proper research. So you’ve got me there.
 
Not a coincidence that the NYT, the left’s newspaper, picks now to “confirm” the story from two years ago. They appear to be making their move to get rid of Biden within the year (still need to make it to Jan 2023 to not count against the term).

Still no answer for Kamala though.
 
Well, yeah. And (spoiler) they seem to all gravitate towards the biological parents being option 1 in ye olde structure of society, regardless of religion. East, West, you name it. It’s almost like it’s natural. Mind blowing, right?

I guess it’s opinion because nobody seems to have made any of this a fact yet with the proper research. So you’ve got me there.
Yeah, historically, a loving mature biological mother and father make the best most suitable parents. That really is not debatable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: phunterd
As I stated above, my “source” is a look at societies through history. Nothing more.

The burden of proof is on you when you make the argument for 3 and 4 parents being better. Have at it, as no one is stopping you from it.
You completely missed my point by jumping into a response that was not directed at your comment.
 
Have basically quit watching college b'ball along with the NFL. Was bored yesterday and was flipping thru the channels so I thought I might watch a little of the St. Peter's/Murray game. They were in pregame warmups. Immediately changed the channel. Reminded me of why I quit watching.
Same. I've probably read (listened on audible to) more books the last 3 years, than I have the previous 20 years. Those hours are a complete waste. College football is the only sport I still watch and that is because of time of the year its just great. Books and authors I never thought I'd get to I finally got to. LOL.
 
Man, this country has really fallen off a cliff. We now celebrate an ex president winning a lawsuit vs a porn star. We defend presidents who oversee record inflation. If you can look at the landscape and decide that one side is at fault, you probably need to start smoking weed every night. All politicians are criminals who give zero shits about us. It's time to take it back. We started a war with England over a 3% tax on tea. We now pay north of 50% of our income in taxes when you figure it all in, and it's been that way for the last 50 years. Anything we are punished with now, it's because we accept it, period.
 
The 2nd amendment has an important part you are forgetting, well regulated.

Letting everyone have guns without any regulations on it is not well regulated, that’s actually called lack of regulation.

Y’all gun nuts want to regulate the shit out of voting but don’t want any regulation on guns when the US is the gun violence capital of the world. Sad!
Which goes to the point of changing the definition of words. Well regulated, at the time of writing the constitution, had a different meaning. It meant in ready order and able and well armed. So you change a definition and then tell me about the constitution. This is why definitions mean things.

Most of law is based on English common law. We knew what that stuff meant. You can get lawyers to tell how a lot of that old stuff has just been crushed due to new ways of interpreting meaning, reasoning, intent... or whatever...;. but they tell you it was always what it said. LOl.
 
B

You some how jumped to FISA warrants and 5th amendment rights, but you never answered my simple question.

Ephesians 6:5-8 states:
“Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”

Is slavery wrong and should slaves be obedient to their masters?
What the hell does the bible have to do with this?
 
I get the histrionics, especially considering how Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (both
moderate nominees) were treated by the dems. But this confirmation is inevitable. Just let it go and take the high road for next time.
 
Last edited:
All I know is that Kim Davis is an asshole and in 2022 some still want to have The Great Gay Debate.
That ship has sailed. Some of you seem to forget that it was something like 16 out 18 states, that put gay marriage on the ballot, it lost, including California... the right wing religious center of America. People just used to understand what it meant.


Do you think we should allow polygamy? How about allowing incest marriages? How about bestiality marriages? Please explain how you justify the first and not these last 3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UKMKG
Lol

Yes, that’s totally what conservatives are known for.

But three and a half years ago, the left orchestrated a spectacle where they accused a man of being a “gang rapist” and unleashed the most insane women to try and take over the building.
 
Have you not been paying attention? This whole ordeal started because of this woman’s religion.
No... The media made it about her because she was an easy target. Just like they do on most issues they can't defend the actual law.

California voted against gay marriage. It was a court order that changed state laws. It's not an uncontitutional law because marriage is a state issue. So a Judge got to make up law. If you don't see the slippery slope argument with that then good luck on the streets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UKMKG
Lol

Yes, that’s totally what conservatives are known for.

But three and a half years ago, the left orchestrated a spectacle where they accused a man of being a “gang rapist” and unleashed the most insane women to try and take over the building.
Kavanaugh has gone above and beyond proving that he is nowhere near a right wing guy. Same with Barrett and Gorsuch. The GOP nominates moderate judges who interpret the law as it should be interpreted. The left nominates judges who will continue to take us further off the cliff. I think the GOP should let this one go with minimal pushback. They are just going to piss off women and blacks. Not the best ROI.
 
Last edited:
I had posts deleted about Joe molesting his daughter Ashley. That ended up true too. The FBI knew all of this stuff was happening. The Biden's are sick AF. But that is just the tip of the ice berg. Ever wonder why Hunter has 5 Finger Lakes tattooed on his back?

It's a deep rabbit hole that people don't want to know
The fbi actually verified it was true when they arrested Project Veritas reporters for buying stolen property. So Joe molesting his daughter in the shower was actually what she wrote.
 
Yeah, historically, a loving mature biological mother and father make the best most suitable parents. That really is not debatable.
Except it is debatable. “Historically” means nothing. Literally. It’s psycho babble. Human history is also cavalcade of tragedy. But I digress.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the way you think to raise a kid is the ideal way. With this, we must almost assume that your concept of idealism extends beyond your ideas and has some type of universal objective truth. Now, let’s name the 100,000 behaviors a parent exhibits that are “less than ideal”. How far do you go enforcing your idealism?
 
Every decent person prior to 20 years ago thought homosexuality was a mental disorder and marriage was between a man and a woman. Now everyone who disagrees is a bigot. This is the relativity of morality without an immutable God as the standard.
Not true. Every person who discriminated against gays prior to 20 years ago was, and probably still is, a close minded bigot.
 
What is the definition of marriage? Ordering someone to wear a burka is unconstitutional. Changing the definition of marriage and then saying she is being unconstitutional is how we got in the trouble we are now.... Lawyers changing definitions and meanings to fit a narrative instead of changing a law or an amendment. Marriage was the union of 1 man and 1 woman for over 1000 years. If it doesn't mean that then it just means whatever you want it to mean at any particular time.
Where? Marriage was the union of one man and 10 pre-pubescent little girls all over the world for ever. Just because it has been 1 man and 1 woman on your 40 acres doesn't mean it is right.
 
Government shouldn't have any involvement in it frankly. It's for the churches to mete out.
The problem is marriage as we know it, is a legal thing. While you can make it a religious thing by getting married in whatever church you choose, it is a legal thing defined by state and federal statutes that bestows privileges and obligations on people that choose to enter the marriage. Because it is sanctioned by government, it is subject to the 5th and 14th amendments which allows everyone due process before liberty is taken from them and promises equal protection of the law (think the law of marriage and the benefits that bestows) to all citizens.
 
Well state law would have to regulate contracts between people. I agree its nobody's business, and if the taxes weren't affected, then most people wouldn't care if people just signed a paper or got married in a church or drank each others blood and swore to live as the great Rishka commands.

But we have inheritance and children to worry about legally speaking. It would suck for you and I to enter into a business partnership and our business become worth $4million and then some judge change the definition of partnership and give part of our co to some employee that didn't invest any money into the co....
Bad analogy if you are saying that by the Supreme Court saying that states can't ban gay marriage is the same as forcing you to share your partnership money with employees. The Supreme Court did not say that you have to let a gay person join your marriage. It just said that if two other people want to start their own business partnership, just like you and your business partner did, it doesn't matter who they sleep with. It doesn't affect your business partnership at all, unless your argument is that it creates too many partnerships and now you have to compete against others now, which is a completely unamerican anti capitalist argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UK-BILL
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT