Christopher000 wrote: .. I guess if there was any doubt as to the liberal mindset on this topic, it was made real clear that day. Who would have ever thought that Americans, en masse, would beg for a socialistic country, and full government control; effectively turning this nation into a police state. The Washington liberals are frothing at the mouth for such an opportunity, because there won't be any turning back after its done, just like when the sodomites were allowed out of their closets. Look at them now...they're a major force to be reckoned with, and there's no turning back.
No major force, just a small minority with big mouths, and with illusion-making media support, whether socialism or the rainbow-minus-one-color crowd. Remember all the manufactured polls of 2016. More of the same is here and coming, Christopher.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Pew Research wrote: ... While most Americans are concerned about the negative impact made-up news and information has on the country, Republicans and Democrats are particularly divided on how closely they connect it to the news media or to President Trump, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Feb. 19 to March 4, 2019.... excerpt from, "Partisans are divided on whether they associate the news media or Trump with âmade-upâ news"
excerpt from, "Partisans are divided on whether they associate the news media or Trump with âmade-upâ news" https://tinyurl.com/y25ghy4 I'll certainly have to agree with Democrats on this oneâ ..." https://tinyurl.com/y2pqxb9
If Trump wrote the news, you and your Demoncrat friends could have a case. Media communicates what it wishes to be seen or heard. Theirs is the communication monopoly. Anything they don't want recorded, doesn't get recorded. Is this difficult?
Jim Lincoln wrote: "Board members on Wednesday considered objections to explicit material that had been recommended for use and removed some of it....."
excerpt from, "California is overhauling sex education guidance for schools â and religious conservatives donât like it" .. It appears that religious conservatives had some positive input on these sex courses.
"some of it..."
No need to celebrate the old 3 steps forward, two steps back ploy. The direction is maintained, and is still wrong.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: No Jim deceived us by saying it was his firm belief to not criticize a standing president That obviously was not true when he stated it (I for one was sure he had criticized Bush for eight years) and he is at least no longer being disingenuous to look at the bright side.
Jim Lincoln wrote: ] âTo announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." â Theodore Roosevelt
Jim, I know it's hard to answer questions when you're busy posting chaff, but did you ever post TR's quote when Obama was president?
Jim Lincoln wrote: Considering the Roe versus Wade decision, the feelings of the population, and even the past actions of this judge--this certainly comes as no surprise -- https://tinyurl.com/y6b8jvge. (Majority of Americans don't want Roe v. Wade overturned, CBS News poll finds)
CBS News poll? You can't be serious. Either you are gullible, or you have an agenda.
Speaking of Vietnam, what could be more immoral than telling the soldiers they were fighting for freedom, when they were fighting for no such thing? To fight for double digit years with no goal to end it is as sickening a policy as this nation has ever had. It wasn't fear of nuclear war that prevented bombing of Haiphong Harbor or the railroad line coming down from the north with endless supplies for the NVA and the VC. Someone profits from stalemate war. If we aren't willing to fight for a purpose, and to a conclusion, we shouldn't be in it. Young life is too precious to waste it fighting politician-led wars. It cost 50000+ American lives, and then we left it for the enemy.
The Quiet Christian wrote: There was another news story about some percentage of Americans OK with some aspects of socialism. Instead of insisting that the government regulate this industry, why don't we regulate ourselves through the lens of God's word instead? If we don't like what the social media giants are doing to us, why use them? Regulate them by regulating yourself.
If they won't have God to be their God, then it will be that government will be their god.
Yet some want socialism. Dumb has no limit. For some reason, the NY Times article avoids mentioning socialism, instead speaking of "poor governance, corruption, and misguided policies.." thus that foundation for these things is missing. But being the NY Times, they did lay some blame on Trump. Not that he was president when this all began, but hey, we can't let real things interfere with the agenda can we?
There's cheating, and there's cheating. Personally, I do pay all that the IRS requires. But if there is cheating to be done, ingenious govts are at least as guilty of it as taxpayers. How many ways are taxpayers cheated out of the bread they have earned? The list of ways to tax is very long. In my state, it is written in the codebook that if someone buys something while traveling out of state, they owe my state sales taxes on it. Who even keeps track of such? I wonder how many allow themselves to be cheated like that? If you help a thief steal, does that make you a good Christian? Oh but they don't call it a sales tax in that case, but a "use tax." You pay a tax for using something you bought somewhere else. Who are the criminals in these types of cases?
âRoe v. Wade established a womanâs constitutional right to safe and legal abortion and has been the law of the land for over 46 years,â Warren wrote in a Medium.com post. âCongress,â she declared, âshould act to ensure that the will of the people remains the law of the land.â
How do such ignorant people get to run for president? There is no constitutional right to an abortion. If there were it would be written in it. The Supreme court invented the right out of its imagination. Just as more recently, it invented a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. It does not exist. The "will of the people" to which Fauxahontas refers has been thwarted in both decisions, and that by unconstitutional decision making.
Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Clear enough? Put that in your peace pipe, Warren.
"A new report has revealed that support of the First Amendment among college students seems to be decreasing, as nearly half of students believe that hate speech should not be protected."
If true, nearly half of students are lacking in understanding, for there is no such thing as hate speech, just as there is no such thing as hate crime. How does man measure what's in a heart of another? People don't have to hate people to say or do evil against them. A robber doesn't have to hate his victim to rob him. Nor does disagreeing with someone mean hate is involved. The purpose of terms like "hate speech" and "hate crime" is to control not only what you do, but what you think. Orwellian nightmare promoted by the evil one, and his useful ignorant helpers.
"But a parent supposedly complained to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), which sent a threatening letter to the Springfield school district demanding that the practice be halted immediately."
Or else what? The principal caves at a threat from the "Freedom From Religion Foundation"? Their very name reveals they are anti first Amendment, the free exercise of religion. The principal apparently doesn't know his Bill of Rights. A shame to be so high up in the school system, and not know basic things.
Another in the continuing series of lunacies from the left. Yet the liars and propagandists from that same end of the spectrum would have us believe the right is a danger to democracy. Is there a rule that says we need listen to crazy people?
Jim Lincoln wrote: This is the first time I've heard of this woman, since she targets the Blacks, she's not a major concern to me. Is it just white men that listen to her? https://tinyurl.com/y2bh9vp2 (After backlash, conservative pundit Candace Owens clarifies viral Hitler comment)
She's brilliant. Since it's the first time you've heard of her, why don't you listen to her before assessment? If she's of no concern to you, you wouldn't have posted anything. But it was opportunity to inject "white men" though, right?