Wayfarer Pilgrim wrote: It's called electoral momentum. If more papers endorse Clinton then it will be her's to loose. But after tonight's debate, she'll slide back into the White House like she never left. Tonight's debate was the worst I have seen for a republican nominee. The first 20 minutes were ok, then all those years of whoremongering and living a life undisciplined showed up. The Trumptosaurus fell in a tar pit. Richard Nixon "checkers speech" was about his tax returns and gifts he received , and he was being audited. He's just lost the election, and aiming for a win he shot himself in the foot.
I respectfully disagree, WP. Hillary looked and sounded like a preprogrammed robot, with memorized lines. Same old same old. I don't think I'm in the minority thinking this. And the moderator bias was in plain sight.
Buckeyes wrote: (TMC) @Jim Lincoln âEven car drivers have to have licenses.â Quote where the Constitution says âthe right to traverse in vehicles shall not be infringedâ and youâld have a great argument! Libs complain that having a photo id is an âoppresiveâ requirement to vote. Yet they also claim that buying a gun, which requires that same photo id, is âtoo easyâ. Only liberals can manage that kind of logic!
It sticks in the craw to use "logic" and "liberals" in the same sentence, doesn't it? As to the benefit of licensing drivers, what benefit? Many more are killed on the highway than by bullets. 33800 in 2015, with 4.4 million seriously injured, according to the National Safety Council. So where is the lament over this violence by the libs? The call for auto control? A background check before purchase? Liberals have no logic or consistent applications, only hypocritical agendas.
Kev wrote: --- Only went to a lodge twice in 30 days but was sure this was not happening there. Maybe I'm crazy but if someone goes twice a month somewhere you can't be sure of what is going on there. ---
True. Yet there are folks 200+ years later will tell you all about what the Masons were doing
B. Warely wrote: Jim; You're absolutely correct Jim. And over ten thousand people - THIS YEAR ALONE - can confirm that people have exercised their "right" - to follow the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. They are dead!!
Hillary appreciates your support. But understand what she believes about guns derives from the same radical liberalism that drives the rest of her agenda.
B. Warely wrote: Hey Mike; The military is primarily for defence. Usually against other nations. But Issuing everybody in the nation with a gun for ordinary life in the community, ends up being a method of lynch mob justice. BTW I note that America has reached double figure in thousand of gun related deaths = 10,682. Gun Violence USA 2016:- Total Number of Incidents 41,581 Number of Deaths1 10,682 Number of Injuries1 22,195 Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed or Injured1 480 Number of Teens (age 12-17) Killed or Injured1 2,269 Mass Shooting 288 _______________ Oh BTW Mike; Your military has nuclear Submarines is there any plans afoot to issue these to citizens also?
You talking silly won't convince me, B. Even your language gives your misconceptions away. "Issue" indeed, as if the right to bear arms is a government right to issue them. Such confusion out there. btw, the ratio of "defence" caused death, including women and children, compared with any statistic you come up with is astronomical.
Jim, the SC judges who think so are wrong, historically, and legally.
B. Warely wrote: That's all right! It is in accordance with the US constitution. "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights." So this guy was just exercising his right to bear a gun. Now why would anybody want to bear arms in a "civilized" society?
Why do "civilized" nations have armies? You know, guys with guns who shoot people from other "civilized" nations. Oh wait, civilized nations only allow government types to have guns, because they are so.....civilized.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Hmm, a forum was closed where I was going to post this. Oh, well. State Homeschool Organization Directory. I see they mentioned the Nebraska one, and the link they have for that seems to be correct, let's hope the rest of links are fine also. ---
Thanks for the posting the useful link in this "sour view" news item, Jim. It's good to be reminded how anti-freedom and anti-child the Obama administration has been and still is..
Satan doesn't hate black people any more that he hates anyone because of their skin color. The idea is ludicrous. Satan hates God, and is an equal-opportunity people hater. If someone wants to give Satan credit, credit him with encouraging people to think their skin color has any importance whatsoever.
SF fron TX wrote: --- Mike, what do you recommend doing when it comes to tell the state that you decided to take full responsibility for the upbringing of your child, as is the law in some states. It's technically right there with the Dept. Of Education.
I'm not sure I understand the question, SF. I was pointing out that there is no authority for the existence of a national department of education. Perhaps if enough legislators with backbones were elected, they could reign in the unelected power-hungry who exist in alphabet soup acronym land. As for individual home-schoolers, they need be loud and clear about who has rightful authority over their children. The squeaky wheel gets things done, as we have seen from the so-called "gay" community, who are relatively few. Maybe Christians can learn something from them.
The first thing is to ignore what the secretary of "education" says until it can be defermined if a Dept of Education is authorized by the Constituion. If it isn't in there, whatever he says is meaningless. We should never start a discussion from an assumed but invalid position.
John UK wrote: Hey Mike, we haven't talked in a long time, have missed your cryptic comments. I remember seeing a documentary some years ago, on religion, and in some cathedral in London (I think) there was an unveiling of the contents of a reliquary, most precious items (body parts), such as bits of bone, a half finger, a tooth, some hair - that sort of thing.
Hi John, yes, human body parts seem more important than the body of Christ, which my former association won't take down from the cross. There is a fascination with death which some have who claim tone Christian. It spills over into secular life as well.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- (Rendering To Caesar---A Biblical Perspective On Government)[/U
We must give credit where it is due. You are a faithful servant of Caesar, Jim. Too bad it accounts for naught. Try to remember you can't break a law if it isn't a law. And in this country, your Caesar has no authority to be making law, nor does Caesar's every whim carry lawful weight.