• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Should a good Christian be patriotic?

Status
Not open for further replies.

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
This is ridarndiculous.

Do you remember that it was a Republican-dominated U.S. Supreme Court that legalized abortion on demand in 1973 with two monumental decisions: Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. It was Republicans that authorized the killing of over 50 million innocent, unborn babies. Furthermore, since 1973, Republican-dominated Courts have repeatedly reaffirmed abortion-on-demand.

Roe vs Wade Supreme Court

Majority
Harry Blackmun-Penned the Majority decision. Appointed by Nixon(R).
Warren E. Burger-Appointed by Nixon(R).
William O. Douglas
William J. Brennan-Appointed by Eisenhower(R)
Potter Stewart-Appointed by Eisenhower(R).
Thurgood Marshall
Lewis Powell- Appointed by Nixon(R)

Minority
Byron White
William Rehnquist

5 of the 7 judges who approved Roe vs Wade were appointed by Republican Presidents. One could say that it was the GOP who gave us abortion on demand.

There were 4,000 unborn babies aborted every day when George W. Bush became president back in 2001. After nearly six years of the Republican Party in complete control of the entire federal government, including both houses of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court, there were still 4,000 unborn babies being aborted every day!

You need to stop all this political wrangling and deeming one party the party of death when it's obvious that the devil doesn't give a flying rats patooky which party he uses to attempt to legitimize evil.

The politics of the president who makes an appointment to the Supreme Court has little to do with the judicial philosophy of the Justice once they are on the Court. This has been evident at least over the last 50+ years. The most recent and worst example of this is Justice Roberts ruling on Obamacare. He made the fine imposed by the law into a tax so that he could rule with the 4 liberals on the court to uphold Obamacare.

When the Republican Party celebrates the slaughter of the unborn at a National Convention as the democrat party did in the 2012 Convention then I will call them the "party of death". It is a fact that since 1980 the democrat party platform has supported the slaughter of the unborn while the Republican party platform has opposed that slaughter. It is also a fact that nothing major, such as a Constitutional Amendment, can be accomplished until the party of death is itself dead and replaced by a party that values life!
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
The politics of the president who makes an appointment to the Supreme Court has little to do with the judicial philosophy of the Justice once they are on the Court. This has been evident at least over the last 50+ years. The most recent and worst example of this is Justice Roberts ruling on Obamacare. He made the fine imposed by the law into a tax so that he could rule with the 4 liberals on the court to uphold Obamacare.

When the Republican Party celebrates the slaughter of the unborn at a National Convention as the democrat party did in the 2012 Convention then I will call them the "party of death". It is a fact that since 1980 the democrat party platform has supported the slaughter of the unborn while the Republican party platform has opposed that slaughter. It is also a fact that nothing major, such as a Constitutional Amendment, can be accomplished until the party of death is itself dead and replaced by a party that values life!


As expected, you now try to excuse away any responsibility of one party over the other. Pretty typical. Both parties are complicit in these continuing atrocities. So you need to stop this attempt to brand one party over the other as a party of death.

One party instituted it. The other party celebrates it. Now everybody is involved. Your favored GOP is just as much a party to bringing about those 50 million plus deaths as is the Democrat Party.

So grab a hat. You're a member of a Death Party too.
qQwr6.gif
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
As expected, you now try to excuse away any responsibility of one party over the other. Pretty typical. Both parties are complicit in these continuing atrocities. So you need to stop this attempt to brand one party over the other as a party of death.

One party instituted it. The other party celebrates it. Now everybody is involved. Your favored GOP is just as much a party to bringing about those 50 million plus deaths as is the Democrat Party.

So grab a hat. You're a member of a Death Party too.
qQwr6.gif

zaac, Trying to reason with you is as useless as shoveling sand against the tide!
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
As expected, you now try to excuse away any responsibility of one party over the other. Pretty typical. Both parties are complicit in these continuing atrocities. So you need to stop this attempt to brand one party over the other as a party of death.

One party instituted it. The other party celebrates it. Now everybody is involved. Your favored GOP is just as much a party to bringing about those 50 million plus deaths as is the Democrat Party.

So grab a hat. You're a member of a Death Party too.
qQwr6.gif
I posted these earlier zaac but like Crabtownboy you only see what agrees with your ideology!

The Stealth War on Abortion
While more Americans support upholding 'Roe v. Wade' than ever, the Tea Party and the Christian right have teamed up to pass hundreds of restrictions eviscerating abortion rights in GOP-controlled state legislatures across the country

Since 2010, when the Tea Party-fueled GOP seized control of 11 state legislatures – bringing the total number of Republican-controlled states to 26 – conservative lawmakers in 30 states have passed 205 anti-abortion restrictions, more than in the previous decade. "What you're seeing is an underhanded strategy to essentially do by the back door what they can't do through the front," says Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is currently litigating against some of the new anti-choice laws. "The politicians and organizations advancing these policies know they can't come right out and say they're trying to effectively outlaw abortion, so instead, they come up with laws that are unnecessary, technical and hard to follow, which too often force clinics to close. Things have reached a very dangerous place."

Last June, the right's stealth attack on abortion rights became front-page news, when, in an attempt to block a vote on a sweeping omnibus bill that included 20 pages of anti-abortion legislation, Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis embarked on an 11-hour-plus filibuster in the Texas Statehouse. Wearing rouge-red Mizuno running shoes and an elegant string of pearls, the blond, blue-eyed Davis, a onetime single mother and a graduate of Harvard Law School, became an overnight symbol of what, in many states, is a growing popular resistance to the conservative anti-choice agenda. But Davis' filibuster failed to prevent the Texas Legislature from holding a special session in July to pass the bill, despite widespread public opposition.



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz2vz1zn6jI
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Bush's Strategy to Restrict Reproductive Freedom: A Chronology
To understand President Bush's ongoing strategy to restrict women's reproductive freedom, you need only look at his record since taking office in 2001. Bush has nominated over 200 anti-choice judges to the federal bench, has made a host of other anti-choice appointments to non-judicial posts, has enthusiastically signed anti-choice legislation passed by Congress, and has used his administration to further policies limiting access to safe and legal abortion.

January 2001 (on the President's first official day in office)

The President reinstated the Global Gag Rule. The Gag Rule prohibits any government funded international entity from using its own private funds to perform or provide abortions, lobby their own government for a change in abortion laws, conduct public education campaigns about abortion, refer women to safe abortion providers, or even provide medically accurate counseling about abortion to their clients.

January 2002 (and subsequent years)

The President declared January 18 "Sanctity of Life Day." The proclamation states that we must pursue a civil society "that will democratically embrace its essential moral duties, including...caring for children born and unborn."

January 2002

The Bush Administration directs states to classify a developing fetus as an "unborn child." The Administration recommends changing SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) so that states may cover children from conception until age 19.

December 2002

The President appointed Dr. David Hager as a member of the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the FDA. Dr. Hager is a member of the Christian Medical Association and Physicians Resource Council for Focus on the Family, two virulently anti-choice organizations. In his book As Jesus Cared For Women: Restoring Women Then and Now, Dr. Hager states that the symptoms of premenstrual syndrome can be cured by prayer and reading Scripture.

2002 (and every year since)

The President withheld the Congress-approved $34 million for the United Nations Population Fund. UNFPA provides critical services to women around the world including educational materials, reproductive health services and contraception.

November 2003

The President signed the federal abortion ban. Three federal district courts and one federal appellate court have struck the ban down as unconstitutional. It provides no exception to protect women's health.

April 2004

The President signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, an attempt to establish a precedent that could be used to weaken a woman's right to choose. The specific language of the legislation elevates the fetus with rights distinct from a pregnant woman.

May 2004

The President supported the FDA decision to withhold approval of over-the-counter distribution of emergency contraception. The FDA is scheduled to decide by September 1, 2005 whether to approve non-prescription sales of emergency contraception.

September 2004

The President applied heavy pressure on Congress to approve $273 million for abstinence-only education programs.

October 2004

The President pressured Congress to pass its Department of Defense Authorization bill denying federal funds to women in the military seeking abortions in the case of rape or incest.

January 2005

The Department of Justice issued its first ever guidelines regarding medical treatment of sexual assault survivors. The guidelines did not include any mention of emergency contraception.

January 2005

President Bush gave a recess appointment to Charles W. Pickering to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit after a failed cloture vote. Pickering has been quoted as saying, "The Supreme Court decision of the United States allows abortion on demand. It gives the husband no say-so.... The taking of life is wrong and we should oppose abortion."



http://www.prochoice.org/policy/exec..._strategy.html
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Continued from previous post!

February 2005

President Bush gave William Pryor a recess appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Pryor has been quoted as saying, "I will never forget January 22, 1973, the day seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution and ripped out the lives of millions of unborn children."

February 2005

President Bush re-nominated several extreme judicial nominees, including four who opposed reproductive choice, that were previously rejected by the Senate.

February 2005

The United States delegation to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women attempted to manipulate the language in the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing conference's platform. They proposed an amendment specifying that the platform not include a right to abortion or "create any new international human rights," ignoring the original recommendation that abortion should be safe in places where it is legal and that criminal charges should not be filed against any woman who undergoes an illegal abortion.

May 2005

Three of President Bush's most extreme nominees hostile to choice are confirmed to the federal appellate courts: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and Bill Pryor.

July 2005

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a pivotal vote on the Supreme Court in upholding a woman's right to choose, retired. President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to fill her seat. Roberts had once argued for the reversal of Roe v. Wade and stated that there was "no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution" for the reasoning behind Roe. Roberts had also co-authored a brief arguing that "[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled..." in a case where the validity of Roe was not at issue. Roberts also referred to a fundamental right to privacy as merely a "so-called" right and argued for narrow interpretations of other women's rights in cases of constitutional protection against sex discrimination, equal opportunities in education, and protecting women in the workplace. Roberts even argued against the federal government's protection of women being harassed and physically intimidated at reproductive health clinics.

September 2005

Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away. President Bush switched Judge John Roberts' nomination and nominated him to become Chief Justice, a position that is very influential on the Supreme Court and is the head of the judicial branch of government. He was confirmed by the Senate at the end of September.

October 2005

President Bush nominated Judge Samuel Alito from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. Alito had a history of supporting restricted access to abortion and limiting the right to privacy. Alito would have upheld a provision requiring women to notify their husbands prior to having an abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Justice O'Connor, whose seat he was nominated to fill, voted to strike down that provision, joining the plurality opinion that found women most affected and most afraid to notify their husbands of their pregnancies were in the gravest danger.

In Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, he wrote his own opinion making clear he joined the decision on New Jersey's ban on certain abortion procedures only because he was required to follow the Supreme Court precedent of Stenberg v. Carhart (Carhart I), a precedent he would no longer be required to follow as a Supreme Court justice. He is confirmed by the Senate in January 2006.

July 2006

President Bush vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This legislation passed both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate with strong bi-partisan support, and was also supported by a majority of Americans. The President's veto reflected a decision to put politics above the lives and health of millions of Americans.

November 2006

President Bush appointed Dr. Eric Keroack to the post of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs (DASPA), the department that oversees Title X, the nation's family planning program. Dr. Keroack was the medical director for A Woman's Concern (AWC), six crisis pregnancy health centers located in the greater Boston area. Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) are designed to discourage pregnant women from seeking abortions, and in many instances they misinform and intimidate women to achieve their goal. His appointment was deeply troubling given Title X's long-standing commitment to medically accurate information. The CPCs that he directed claimed that contractption was "demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness." NAF and many other health care and women's organizations sent a letter to Michael Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services, to express serious concerns over the appointment of Dr. Keroack. He resigned in March 2007.

April 2007

The United States Supreme Court issued its decision upholding a federal ban on certain safe abortion procedures in Carhart v. Gonzales. In the first decision issued since Justice O'Connor's retirement, the Court retreated from a core principle of Roe v. Wade - that women's health must remain paramount. The ruling was a major set back for women's health and access to abortion.

June 2007

President Bush again vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, an action out of step with the majority of Americans who support this potentially life-saving medical research. Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to find new treatments, or even cures, for diseases that affect millions of Americans such as cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's, ALS, and Alzheimer's.

July 2007

President Bush's Department of Health and Human Services revised its website, replacing factual data about teen pregnancy with biased information and misleading claims, including one that states, "Abortions can have complications. There may be emotional consequences, as well: some women say that they feel sad and some use more alcohol or drugs than before."
http://www.prochoice.org/policy/exec..._strategy.html
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
zaac, Trying to reason with you is as useless as shoveling sand against the tide!

Gosh I'm not trying to reason with you and your political god of division. I'm just pointing out your foolishness for what it is.:thumbsup:
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
I posted these earlier zaac but like Crabtownboy you only see what agrees with your ideology!

Does anything other than hypocritical foolishness come off your fingertips? You continue to try to explain away why the GOP isn't also complicit in those 50+ million deaths and mkae one party over another into the "party of death". But then have the stones to talk about somebody only seeing what agrees with their theology. :laugh:

Like I said before,the Supreme Court that gave us abortion on demand was led by Republican appointed justices. So try as you may to wiggle out of it, the GOP was the original "party of death" if we're gonna assign names and remains just as complicit in the deaths of those 50+ million unborn babies as does the Democrat Party.

The devil doesn't care about what party you favor politically.
 

Sapper Woody

Well-Known Member
The devil doesn't care about what party you favor politically.

As a blanket statement, I'd have to disagree. If one party is more morally upright, and will stand for Christian values, then of course he's going to try and get that party out of power.

I am independent. But with our current political system, my votes generally go to republicans. While not the best party possible, I believe the republican party to be worlds closer to my christian values than the democratic party.

Concerning abortion, regardless of how things started, look at the party's stances today. Generally, democrats are for it, and republicans are against it. It really is that simple.
 

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
As a blanket statement, I'd have to disagree. If one party is more morally upright, and will stand for Christian values, then of course he's going to try and get that party out of power.

I am independent. But with our current political system, my votes generally go to republicans. While not the best party possible, I believe the republican party to be worlds closer to my christian values than the democratic party.

Concerning abortion, regardless of how things started, look at the party's stances today. Generally, democrats are for it, and republicans are against it. It really is that simple.


Except for that fact that when the GOP had the White House, the Senate, and the House their legislation allowed roughly 99.8% of the abortions to continue.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Except for that fact that when the GOP had the White House, the Senate, and the House their legislation allowed roughly 99.8% of the abortions to continue.

Someone needs to get their facts straight. Of course when one doesn't care to know the truth so they can keep their own private narrative then facts do not matter.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Someone needs to get their facts straight. Of course when one doesn't care to know the truth so they can keep their own private narrative then facts do not matter.

What are the facts? Rather meaningless statement standing on its own, also it is very humorous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zaac

Well-Known Member
As a blanket statement, I'd have to disagree. If one party is more morally upright, and will stand for Christian values, then of course he's going to try and get that party out of power.

And which party would that be? The one who says it stands for Christian values while backing a man who is 100% against Christ or the one that says it stands for Christian values by backing every possible unChristlike initiative imaginable?

I am independent. But with our current political system, my votes generally go to republicans. While not the best party possible, I believe the republican party to be worlds closer to my christian values than the democratic party.

So a party that puts forth a man who 100% rejects Christ is closer to your Christian values? I honestly don't know if I would tell folks that? People can still be saved if they get values wrong. If we got them thinking it's okay to not have Jesus, then we got some problems.

Concerning abortion, regardless of how things started, look at the party's stances today. Generally, democrats are for it, and republicans are against it. It really is that simple.

And if you look at taking care of the poor, generally Democrats are for it and the Republicans are against it.

So how does one preach concern for 50 million dead while showing disdain for the living?

Politics needs to be left out of any conversation dealing with the church. All it does is bring division amongst the Body about things that shouldn't even be our focus.

It's nothing short of foolish and divisive to call one party the party of death when they are both equally complicit. And the only reason again that people continue to take shots at one party over another about ISSUES is that politics has become more important amongst those in the church than has the things of God.

We've got this warped notion that if we get the politics and the politicians of a certain party, everything will once again be fine and it won't.

Sin will still be an issue and folks will still be going to hell because complacent folks in their comfortable politics that protects their 401ks and their material stuff that they want to pass on to their children and their grandchildren will sit and rest in their complacency because no one has tried to take it away from them.

The church is so busy worrying about issues and politics that we've seen to have lost track of what our focus is supposed to be.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
And which party would that be? The one who says it stands for Christian values while backing a man who is 100% against Christ or the one that says it stands for Christian values by backing every possible unChristlike initiative imaginable?

And if you look at taking care of the poor, generally Democrats are for it and the Republicans are against it.

So how does one preach concern for 50 million dead while showing disdain for the living?

You are right. I believe one reason those who are so strident about abortion is that it is easy. All you have to do is scream about abortion. It requires nothing else.

However, to be in favor of helping the poor, the ill, the homeless, children in need will require they give of their time and money. In other words, it costs and they do not want anything that costs them. I really believe this.This, IMHO, is the primary reason some get so uptight when Christ's teachings are mentioned.

They really do not want to hear words such as:

“When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.”

“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.”

“We must be ready to allow ourselves to be interrupted by God.”

“Christianity without discipleship is always Christianity without Christ.”

All from D. Bonehoeffer.

Far too many christians, yes little c, want Christ without cost.
 

Sapper Woody

Well-Known Member
What's happening here is a misconception. To be in favor of welfare reform is not to be against welfare.

I am all for helping the poor and needy. I'm not going to puff myself up by describing what I do, but hopefully you'll take me at my word and believe that I do something. The problem is the system, and those that take advantage of it. If a man is not willing to work, he shouldn't be taken care of. If he CAN'T work, he should be taken care of. If he made some bad decisions and needs some temporary help, then by all means help him out. But if he is milking the system, or taking illegal drugs, or is simply wanting someone to take care of him for nothing, then don't help him out.

And there are things we could do to help the system not be taken advantage of. Drug testing is one. Cashiers reporting people who buy food for others with their food stamps, so they can buy alcohol is another. Turning in receipts of groceries for those on welfare and mandatory finance classes and/or rehabilitation. Time limits on welfare. So many things to help the system.

I am not against helping people. But I am against lazy people feeding off of me. And I am against the government being in charge of the program, but unfortunately, we as Christians dropped the ball and the government had to step in.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What's happening here is a misconception. To be in favor of welfare reform is not to be against welfare.

I am all for helping the poor and needy. I'm not going to puff myself up by describing what I do, but hopefully you'll take me at my word and believe that I do something. The problem is the system, and those that take advantage of it. If a man is not willing to work, he shouldn't be taken care of. If he CAN'T work, he should be taken care of. If he made some bad decisions and needs some temporary help, then by all means help him out. But if he is milking the system, or taking illegal drugs, or is simply wanting someone to take care of him for nothing, then don't help him out.

And there are things we could do to help the system not be taken advantage of. Drug testing is one. Cashiers reporting people who buy food for others with their food stamps, so they can buy alcohol is another. Turning in receipts of groceries for those on welfare and mandatory finance classes and/or rehabilitation. Time limits on welfare. So many things to help the system.

I am not against helping people. But I am against lazy people feeding off of me. And I am against the government being in charge of the program, but unfortunately, we as Christians dropped the ball and the government had to step in.

I have no problem with your post. For the most part I agree.

There should be a means test on lifetime welfare benefits. There are those who will be in need all their lives and there are those who are not at fault for this need.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Except for that fact that when the GOP had the White House, the Senate, and the House their legislation allowed roughly 99.8% of the abortions to continue.

Am I to understand that you are unconcerned about this continued slaughter. Are of the same mindset as zaac and Crabtownboy? Can you not understand that as long as there are sufficient democrats in the Senate like Schumer and Durbin to mount a filibuster nothing of substance to restrict abortion will pass. Because of those "Christians" who voted for that radical abortionist Obama we now have two more radical abortionist Justices. Hopefully he will not get the opportunity to appoint another.

Didn't you read the stuff I posted that President Bush did? Did you not know that Bush signed into law the Ban on Partial Birth Abortion that Clinton vetoed twice? The only chance that we have of stopping the continuation of this holocaust is to kill the radical leftist democrat party, the "party of death" and replace it with a pro-life party.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
What's happening here is a misconception. To be in favor of welfare reform is not to be against welfare.

I am all for helping the poor and needy. I'm not going to puff myself up by describing what I do, but hopefully you'll take me at my word and believe that I do something. The problem is the system, and those that take advantage of it. If a man is not willing to work, he shouldn't be taken care of. If he CAN'T work, he should be taken care of. If he made some bad decisions and needs some temporary help, then by all means help him out. But if he is milking the system, or taking illegal drugs, or is simply wanting someone to take care of him for nothing, then don't help him out.

And there are things we could do to help the system not be taken advantage of. Drug testing is one. Cashiers reporting people who buy food for others with their food stamps, so they can buy alcohol is another. Turning in receipts of groceries for those on welfare and mandatory finance classes and/or rehabilitation. Time limits on welfare. So many things to help the system.

I am not against helping people. But I am against lazy people feeding off of me. And I am against the government being in charge of the program, but unfortunately, we as Christians dropped the ball and the government had to step in.

I believe you have expressed the view of all Conservatives and the majority of Repunlicans. I believe the welfare state created by the democrat party is the cause of the destruction of the family in this country.

You mention drug testing. Some Federal judges have already struck that down for welfare recipients. The food stamp program is a disgrace and since Obama has been in office 20,000,000 people have been added to the program. There was a time when those on food stamps actually used stamps, now they just pull out a credit card. And then there is the Obamaphone!!:BangHead::BangHead:

May I say that your posts are always rational. Sadly I let my hatred of abortion control my emotions at times, particularly when Christians like Zaac, Crabtownboy, and C4K are ambivalent about this horror.
 

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
And the GOP justices did SO MUCH to stop abortion. The highly acclaimed ban on partial birth abortions allowed 99.8% of abortions to continue, just enough to placate their supporters and still allowing millions to die.

There is no Prolife party, one is only slightly less pro-murder and knows how to play their supporters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
And the GOP justices did SO MUCH to stop abortion. The highly acclaimed ban on partial birth abortions allowed 99.8% of abortions to continue, just enough to placate their supporters and still allowing millions to die.
For your information there should be no GOP or democrat Justices. They are supposed to uphold the Constitution. Furthermore, in case you are unaware, it takes a majority of the Justices to agree on anything.


There is no Prolife party, one is only slightly less pro-murder and knows how to play their supporters.
You are mistaken because there is a pro-life party, the Republican Party. It is simply that the way our government works it takes a super majority in the Senate to pass radical legislation, same as democrats when they passed Obamacare. Then that party must control the executive.

Next thing we know you will be quoting Matthew 25 just like Crabtownboy. If he is not careful he will just be translated like Enoch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top