Liberal

[Jedi Knight]

I don't have any problem with John 14:6.
Could you clarify what you mean?

A liberal view would say Jesus is one of many ways and that the christian view is too closed minded.

 

[Streetsweeper]

A liberal view would say Jesus is one of many ways and that the christian view is too closed minded.

Hmmm! Can of worms here.

I think there are many paths to Jesus, but Jesus is the only path to God.

 

[saturneptune]

If the courts have no say in marriage, then they have no say in family or any other matter of law. Marriage is the foundation of all government.

Marriage was an institution ordained by the Lord in the book of Genesis. He did not need government to help Him accomplish His purposes in marriage. Marriage is the foundation of all families, communites and societies. Government is merely an organization to carry out the functions of society. Government basically attracts self serving people, and in no way rests on a foundation of marriage. Government today rests on a collection of greedy individuals.

What has govenment done with marriage in this nation over 200+ years? It started with a definition similar to that in Scripture, and now has evolved into making same sex marriage the law of the land. How does that work for you as "marriage being the foundation of all government?"

 

[Aaron]

Who has authority in a marriage?

 

[poncho]

Who has authority in a marriage?

The mother in law.

The Liberal Suffers From An Inferiority Complex.

The Liberal Does Not Like The Idea Of A Law He Cannot Use To His Advantage.

The Liberal Hates Those Who Go Against The Tide, Even If The Tide Is Drowning Us All.

The Liberal Thinks He Knows What’s Best For All Of Us. Adapted from this article.

 

[Streetsweeper]

The US constitution does not pemit revision to the extent that content is discarded. It does permit modification through appended amendments which can render original content redundant even though that content remains part of the constitution. If I have this correct, then the constitution maintains it's own historical development within itself.

You either have no idea what you're talking about or your liberalism is showing.

I'm happy to go with 'no idea what I'm talking about', and I've reached the point I don't care whether Revmitchell thinks my 'liberalism' is showing. Most of the responses I see here seem consistent with what 'liberals' are accused, so it's all pretty meaningless.

I'm not happy to leave this point unresolved. This should involve a simple explanation of the constitutional structure and ammendment process. I am starting to suspect Revmitchell does not have sufficient constitutional knowledge to provide an explanation.

Can anyone else assist?
Do I have an incorrect view of US constitutional change? If so can I have an appropriate explanation, with references to credible sites.

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm happy to go with 'no idea what I'm talking about', and I've reached the point I don't care whether Revmitchell thinks my 'liberalism' is showing. Most of the responses I see here seem consistent with what 'liberals' are accused, so it's all pretty meaningless.

I'm not happy to leave this point unresolved. This should involve a simple explanation of the constitutional structure and ammendment process. I am starting to suspect Revmitchell does not have sufficient constitutional knowledge to provide an explanation.

Can anyone else assist?
Do I have an incorrect view of US constitutional change? If so can I have an appropriate explanation, with references to credible sites.

Yes we all believe that is what you really want to know.

 

[Streetsweeper]

Yes we all believe that is what you really want to know.

Yeah, that's fine Mr Mitchell.
So you know what I'm asking. Can anyone help with an answer?

 

[poncho]

I'm happy to go with 'no idea what I'm talking about', and I've reached the point I don't care whether Revmitchell thinks my 'liberalism' is showing. Most of the responses I see here seem consistent with what 'liberals' are accused, so it's all pretty meaningless.

I'm not happy to leave this point unresolved. This should involve a simple explanation of the constitutional structure and ammendment process. I am starting to suspect Revmitchell does not have sufficient constitutional knowledge to provide an explanation.

Can anyone else assist?
Do I have an incorrect view of US constitutional change? If so can I have an appropriate explanation, with references to credible sites.

I think you've reached the point where we're all worn out on you. See ya in the funny papers Ace. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[saturneptune]

Yes we all believe that is what you really want to know.

Streetsweeper and Zaac need to form a club.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

3. The US constitution does not pemit revision to the extent that content is discarded. It does permit modification through appended amendments which can render original content redundant even though that content remains part of the constitution. If I have this correct, then the constitution maintains it's own historical development within itself.

You are exactly right. I've made this point before and it should be apparent to anyone who has ever read the Constitution. However, the connies on here don't care about facts when presented by someone outside of their little group, even facts which don't have any bearing on their political views.

While text is not removed from the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions can have differing rules. For example, the Florida Constitution can have text removed, inserted or deleted. Click here to read it.

 

[LadyEagle]

Closing this since there have been reported posts and we are now on page 10 (per forum rules).

Lady Eagle
Moderator


BTW, here is the US Constitution on line in its original form for those who care to read it. We have veered so far from the original intent and practice of US Constitution, it is mind blowing.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html