Search results

Obviously you are describing yourself, considering the number of posts you make about it. However, preferring one candidate over another is not the definition of idolatry.

If you are convicted of a crime, and done your time, then do you still have.... ...the right to free speech? ...the right to free religion? ...the right to take part in a peaceful assembly? ...the right to vote?

I am l on familiar with it. If next door neighbors in Kansas City both move on October 30 this year-- one to Oklahoma and one to Minnesota-- and one can vote in this upcoming election in his new precinct and one cannot, they do not have a constitutional (or otherwise) guarantee of a right to vote.

Why is he being so diplomatic?

Be as evasive as you want to, but I showed the constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to vote. The fact that you say whether a person is allowed to vote may depend on the state such person lives in makes this unmistakable.

That was a continuation, stupid, of your little list of the qualities of your hypothetical person and the reason he or she cannot be denied a vote with an example of why he or she can be so denied.

And is one day late moving into a new apartment in a new town to register?

That's not the question we are discussing. It is: is the right to vote guaranteed to anyone by the constitution?

Poppysheckle! Stating the reasons a presumed right cannot be denied is no guarantee of such right to anyone. If rights are recognized in such way, then G.Liddy was unconstitutionally imprisoned for refusing to answer questions that may incriminate him. Besides keeping and bearing arms would be...

Why does anyone who believes that support either candidate?

Voting is not a right 'guaranteed' to anyone.

Where's Joe DiMaggio when we need him?

I wonder if NFL Properties sells jerseys that say on the back "UNARMED BLACK MEN" upside down.

Texas is a Right to Work state and we'll keep it that way. The continuous covetousness of unions, to the extent that no one should have a job who won't join them, and should be left homeless and destitute, is contrary to biblical guidelines by Jesus, Paul, John the Baptist, and others.

I don't watch any politickle debates and don't even know when this one takes place. They exist in order to smear the opponent and nothing else. Therefore proponents will claim their candidate won no matter what. Debates are worthless.

Yeah, we'd be asking how she got her hands on the money from his funds.

'Perhaps' if we spent more time witnessing to those who are rioting in Charlotte, the next time there is a police shooting-- no matter that it was a black cop who shot a black man wielding a gun the suspect's daughter screamed was a book-- maybe they will 'turn the other cheek.' In the same way...

I didn't know she was that bad, but I'm not voting for her anyway.

Those other cases I mentioned-- the only way they were "detrimental"-- damaging, harmful-- to the league was that they get some people talking negatively about them. That is the same case here... except that not Schott nor Campanis, nor Snyder made any kind of gestures meant to incite violence.

I take from this that you DO agree the NFL has the authority to fine, suspend, or ban those who express ideas the league does not like. Correct? ed. "...the league does not like" or else challenges the image the league wishes to present for itself.