Everyone must decide what kind of country we want to live in. I want to live in a country that treats the poor and elderly with compassion. You obviously don't. I take this position because of my Christian faith.
-
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!
The facts about Trump policy of separating families at the border
- Thread starter FollowTheWay
- Start date
- Status
Entering the country without documentation is illegal. Incarcerating children with adults is also illegal.
On the contrary, I do also, but I want compassion done in accordance with the Constitution.
Why is it that you have no problem with our Constitution being violated time and time again?
Imagine for a moment what each of us as individuals could do in a charitable way if the Federal government was a fraction of the size it is now and you had more money in your pocket?
And the left never cared when O ran up as much debt as all previous presidents in our history, combined. What did we get? New infrastructure? New jobs? No. Did the fed even raise rates once in eight years? That facilitated his ability to run the debt ever higher, congress was complicit, without ever doing their job of creating a workable budget. It seems all were able to lead us down the global path by not making us better, but making us even with the rest of the world of socialist losers. Since Trump, the fed can’t raise rates fast enough, to try to put us back in line with the global powers that be. You want to talk evil empire? Trump has taken more on his shoulders to save us as a nation than most will ever know. But, thank God for DJT, he’s fighting for us every day.
Last edited:
Oh I did and I knew you would quibble.
Do you follow the Constitution (a man-made document) or the Bible (God-breathed) and do you obey Man or God when the chips are down?
As indicated elsewhere by me, that has been tried before and, on its own, does not work - hence the whole necessity for some kind of welfare state in the first place.
Amen!
I want a nation that can decide to have legal immgration, and would be much more concerned about stopping abortion and gay weddings, instead of illegals , so have the Dems and liberals focus on those things first!
The Dems/libs/media need to pule the telephone out of their eyes, before they get to taking the toothpick out of president trumps Eyes!
Not an either/or, surely? Why does it have to be so binary!
I find your post disingenuous. Those of you on the extreme far left are always trying to paint those with whom you disagree as not wanting the same thing, like in this post. You intentionally ignore that we want the same thing but have different views on how to get there. You engage in the logical fallacy of black and white in order to present those with whom you disagree in the worst possible light. When you cannot make your case without the ongoing use of these logical fallacies it shows you have no real argument. All you are left with (since logic is not part of your argument) is emotion. All of your accusations and claims of others are based purely on emotion (i.e. you hate old people and the poor). Honestly it comes across like the punching of a pillow. You know those times when one is so frustrated that they punch a pillow to get rid of the emotional excess. That is what you do but instead of punching a pillow you say sophomoric things like "you hate the poor and the elderly".
If you want to have a reasonable discussion you can do the following:
1. Admit to yourself and others that we want the same thing we just differ on how to get there.
2. When you get over emotional about posting walk away and come back to it later.
3. Everyone of us can soften our discourse, we might be right but our explanation of that can still show respect to those with whom we disagree with.
4. Don't just say our way is the better resolution but explain why and what reasonable steps can be made to achieve them.
In the end stop all the accusations of other people you cannot possibly know. No one on this board hates the poor or the elderly.
You said "Medicaid is not available to illegal immigrants", and you're wrong again. They go to the ER for colds, you left that part out intentionally.
Umm - because you said:
Do you follow the Constitution (a man-made document) or the Bible (God-breathed) and do you obey Man or God when the chips are down?
binary. I think it is possible to follow the Constitution and the Bible at the same time but not in a decadent, immoral country like mine. If you want to base the laws on the Bible, the left accuses you of wanting a theocracy and that's about what it would be.
Umm - because you said:
Do you follow the Constitution (a man-made document) or the Bible (God-breathed) and do you obey Man or God when the chips are down?
binary. I think it is possible to follow the Constitution and the Bible at the same time but not in a decadent, immoral country like mine. If you want to base the laws on the Bible, the left accuses you of wanting a theocracy and that's about what it would be.
The dole crowd are the only ones getting healthcare now, unless you are lucky enough to be old. The rest can’t afford their deductibles & copays, but they still pay their premiums to prop up the others. Now the ads come out to SAVE obamacare as the left tries to get elected on that. What a laugh. It was designed to fail from the inception, so they could get to single payer & have their complete takeover.......as soon as they get our guns.
The Constitution is a living document. That's what the founding fathers intended it to be. It has been amended a number of times.
The most significant of course was the addition of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) in 1791.
Since then 17 additional amendments have been added. The 11th was added in 1795 and the 12th in 1804. The 13th through 15th came after the Civil war. Amendments 16-19 were added in the Progressive era of 1913 through 1920. Amendments 20-27 were added in 1933 through 1982.
You speak as if the Constitution was written at one point in time and never changed. Obviously, that's not the case.
No one in the founding of this country ever said it was a living document. The ability to amend it does not support such a claim. In fact it does just the opposite. Since the original intent of the authors is sacrosanct to the Constitution it must be amended in order to make a change. By the way the only means by which is given to change the original intent of the Constitution is by making an amendment.
When the far left justices say it is a living document that means they have the option to throw the original intent out the door and impose a new intent (their personal view) on the meaning of the Constitution so as to effect change. See it is very hard to make amendments as the authors intended it to be. To do an end a round the constitution far lefters now call it a living Constitution to avoid the difficulty of having to go through the amendment process.
This is basic civics my friend.
"The problem with a living Constitution in a word is that somebody has to decide how it grows and when it is that new rights are – you know — come forth. And that’s an enormous responsibility in a democracy to place upon nine lawyers, or even 30 lawyers.” For him, the Constitution was static, unchanging and enduring, and should only be changed by the voters through the amendment process." Justice Anton Scalia.
Obviously it has changed many times. That makes it a living document. Otherwise, do you want to throw out the Bill of Rights? There goes your gun theory.
Last edited:
You con't know what you are talking about. You are using a term (living document) that you do not understand.
The Constitution is not a "living document." It is a contract ratified by the American people which limits the power of Government.
Even Justice Scalia did not believe in "original intent." He said he didn't care what the authors intended. He said it is the text that is important. It says what it says, and does not say what it does not say.
Even Justice Scalia did not believe in "original intent." He said he didn't care what the authors intended. He said it is the text that is important. It says what it says, and does not say what it does not say.
- Status