Search results

Or instead of throwing away your precious vote, prioritize, pick one or two issues that you reckon have the most ideological leverage, something like abortion or social welfare services, and then vote for the party that supports that issue.

Well that's why we have all those politicians and officials swear sacred oaths to defend the Constitution.

As far as I'm concerned the Declaration of Independence in part expresses a moral theory, in prose. The Constitution expresses that moral theory in law. Yes there is the Constitution.

True

From a geologist on the internet.

Some of the types of things that can act like a lit cigrit thrown into a powder keg: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-world-war-ii-stockholm-sweden-258926c3bad81d918d7475cf95bfd992...

I'm curious about geology as a discipline, and the biblical Flood. Plate Tectonics Debunked- reopened Is it possible that the continents drifting apart at a four-inches per year pace wrt the Americas and Europe & Africa is evidence of the biblical global Flood? Are the hydroplates still...

I used to be a Calvinist. In truth I still am. I believe in what the Calvinists call 'sovereignty' but what the Catechism calls 'providence'. The Catechism's teaching on providence satisfied me as a Calvinist that Catholicism was as fully Calvinist as I was and still am. What makes the...

Not only that, but you have invoked self-evidence, which is what the American founders invoked in their declaration that we are all endowed with universal and absolute rights. But you don't need an extrapolation if you just accept the individual rights themselves as existing. Taking...

The United States Constitution has no such requirement.

Perhaps it would help to know that in Latin the word for rights and the word for laws is the same word. In English we distinguish 'rights' and 'laws' with their own words, but the ancient Romans did not. So when, in Greek, someone refers to Roman laws, they had to provide context to show that...

I don't think so but, let's see. Of course. Yes again. Recall that I am at geology level zero for starters. I have exposed myself to a lot of stuff since this OP was written. I'd put myself at a level 0.1 or maybe 0.25 by now (a sophomore geology major would be like a level 1.00). Still...

OK I was just trying to help.

As far as I can tell, you're saying "not guilty" is legalese that only technically belongs at the end of a court trial. Further, you're meaning that because there isn't sufficient evidence to indict, therefore there would be no trial, indictment being prerequisite to a court trial. Therefore...

Rights either exist or they don't. That was the point. If rights exist it doesn't matter whether God or man said it. The rights exist either way. If we believe they exist because God " put [them] in [our] inward parts, and [wrote them] in [our] hearts" then OK, but people don't have to...

Do you know what anecdotal evidence is and why it does not substantiate arguments? Learn what anecdotal evidence is and why it does not substantiate arguments.

We know it's all electioneering because we know the Legislature has the absolute power to impeach any Supreme Court justice. They're not doing that, therefore this is electioneering, there's no other option. If they did impeach that obviously doesn't rule out that it's electioneering (witness...

No, it's the other way around. Moral social contracts are contingent on their recognition of rights, which are prepolitical. Knowing is half the battle. Your government to be a moral regime depends upon it first recognizing your rights, which act as trumps against not only your government but...

Who cares? What's the difference? I mean, in this thread, what's the difference?