Jump to content

Women's March


PhatMack19

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

And agreeing with the SC decision that killing babies is OK and legal will be a losing proposition.

Some of us don't agree that 9 folks have the eternal say in what is right and what is wrong...their "opinion" will change, God's won't.

The SC is the final say in the law of the land...I get it, but as a Christian I can also say that they are wrong.

And if you don't want to get in a Theological discussion, don't throw out there that killing a baby in the womb is not murder just because 9 folks say it's not.

Where do you see that I agreed with anything? 

A legal question was asked and a legal answer was given. 

Again, this is not a thread about theology.  I disagree with abortions on demand and disagree with Roe v. Wade. Yes, killing babies in the womb with consent of the mother is no murder. Murder is a criminal law. If you want to bring it up as a sin feel free. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, baddog said:

Another "political" statement is to say something is taken out of context, which is what Madonna is saying here. If she were not afraid of prosecution, why attempt to justify her statement? 

I realize everyone has had "bad thoughts".....(wishing someone dead and things of that nature)....but these are usually kept to oneself or among close friends. However, when you place yourself on a national platform and say you have thought about blowing up the WH, I believe that is a terroristic threat and criminal to the point of inciting, especially when it involves the President. 

Whether they investigate or not is up to those involved. 

This is the hidden content, please

I can't speak for her nor would I care to with her consent.  

Care to make any bets as to whether any federal agency will seek an indictment? Remember this isn't under the Obama administration but now under Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Where do you see that I agreed with anything? 

A legal question was asked and a legal answer was given. 

Again, this is not a thread about theology.  I disagree with abortions on demand and disagree with Roe v. Wade. Yes, killing babies in the womb with consent of the mother is no murder. Murder is a criminal law. If you want to bring it up as a sin feel free. 

Only because 9 people said it wasn't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Only because 9 people said it wasn't.  

No, several states made it legal before that. 

As to your argument "only because", that applies to every law. You are able to post your thoughts in this forum "only because" a group of men (no woman were allowed) came up with the First Amendment. 

Religion is between one person and God, period. 

Many or most Muslims want Sharia law to be the law if the land or at the very least,  the ability to practice it within their communities. Think about that when wanting to make religious beliefs the law of the land.  Maybe some Southern Baptists thing dancing should be outlaw dancing or the Mormons think we should ban all caffeinated drinks.

The term slippery slope is often overused but not so in this case.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I can't speak for her nor would I care to with her consent.  

Care to make any bets as to whether any federal agency will seek an indictment? Remember this isn't under the Obama administration but now under Trump. 

Forgive me for not understanding your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

No, several states made it legal before that. 

As to your argument "only because", that applies to every law. You are able to post your thoughts in this forum "only because" a group of men (no woman were allowed) came up with the First Amendment. 

Religion is between one person and God, period. 

Many or most Muslims want Sharia law to be the law if the land or at the very least,  the ability to practice it within their communities. Think about that when wanting to make religious beliefs the law of the land.  Maybe some Southern Baptists thing dancing should be outlaw dancing or the Mormons think we should ban all caffeinated drinks.

The term slippery slope is often overused but not so in this case.  

The problem I have with those examples are they are not part of the original laws of the land.  Thou shall not commit murder goes directly toward murder.  I know we both agree it is wrong, but just because 9 people say a mother can kill her unborn baby, does not make it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

The problem I have with those examples are they are not part of the original laws of the land.  Thou shall not commit murder goes directly toward murder.  I know we both agree it is wrong, but just because 9 people say a mother can kill her unborn baby, does not make it right.

It doesn't make it morally right. It does make it legally correct. 

When you say murder, you can get varying opinions from Christians on that. Is war murder? Is self defense murder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Where do you see that I agreed with anything? 

A legal question was asked and a legal answer was given. 

Again, this is not a thread about theology.  I disagree with abortions on demand and disagree with Roe v. Wade. Yes, killing babies in the womb with consent of the mother is no murder. Murder is a criminal law. If you want to bring it up as a sin feel free. 

Didn't think you agreed with it...have seen enough of your posts to know you probably don't, and I realize you are simply putting the legal position out.

I would disagree that it was only in the modern age that murder was defined...the commandment in Hebrew is not actually "Thou shall not Kill", it's actually interpreted as "Thou shall not take an innocent life".

In the womb is about as innocent as they get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BS Wildcats said:

Would not get that from a liberal Dem Hillary supporter.  They are some of the most hateful bunch of people around.

Told my wife the very same thing this morning.  ESPECIALLY to a waitress who was a Trump supporter.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, baddog said:

......and I used to like Ashley Judd. She has the kind of looks I go for.....not anymore. These women seem to have had something pent up inside them and they are letting it out. Still don't know what they are protesting.

And the libtards and Dems think the conservative right are racist homophobes.  Ashley Judd and Madonna are two of the biggest idiots going.  The libtard Dems that are on this site, you should think about what these fools are doing.  They are almost assuring it will be a while before there is another liberal in the WH.  Thank you for that Obama, Madonna, and Ashley.  Keep up the fight!!

MAGA!!!!!! Keep it up Trump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,207
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    JBarry68
    Newest Member
    JBarry68
    Joined



  • Posts

    • That should tell everyone something pretty clearly. Does anyone really think BH is recruiting elementary kids, to get them to transfer in Jr. high? Seriously? Here is the "dirty little secret" about BH: Most people move to the district for a quality living environment to raise their young family, and benefit from the outstanding acedemics at BH. Even If all athlectics suddenly disappeared from BH, people would still want their kids in the district. If thats not enough to convince anyone, and BH really was determined to recruit, first step would be to have open enrollemnt. It is closed.        Yes, I get it, no one ever wants to give BH the benefit of the doubt on anything. Some of the accusations are beyond ridiculous though. This paranoia the BH critics are afflicted with is not just sad, its flat out laughable.     
    • Opting is always an option. Are they considering any BC assistants? Highly qualified after that season they put up. 
    • Be that as it may, only time will tell. Hide and watch. Don’t be surprised if the next HC hire uses his own recipe. That happens more than not historically. I am not arguing the point that Hooks & CT had a winning combination that could’ve been carried over. I’m saying that finding someone to do that is not going to be as easy as one might think. Tell me again why Saban’s replacement, who even has Saban’s assistance if he wants it, just lost another game to an unranked team and has taken the Tide out of playoff contention? Why wouldn’t he just follow the success of possibly the greatest college football coach ever lived? 
    • We've acknowledged having 2 HOF coaches hasn't been like most other schools. So why everyone jumps to the conclusion it wouldn't work here is beyond my comprehension. I see it carry over with these other hires. Gilmer, Aledo, North Shore, Austin Westlake. Next man up that continues the system in place has instant success. Matter fact there was 2 rookie HC that won the state championship the same year we handed over the keys. Same book. Same recipe. Better ingredients.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...