Search results

Hey man. You made a bold claim. You need to 'back it up'.

The former president had every opportunity and he took every opportunity to bring cases before judges, and there wasn't any obstruction of President Trump's right to plead his case, in any way that he and his attorneys and strategists wanted to attempt. They exhausted all of their ideas, and...

That's good Hoping! That's very good! It cannot be taken to mean in anything I've ever said to you that this what you're saying right here isn't wonderful! It is! And I'm happy for you! It's not that, but how, you're attempting to do it. Your original religion Catholicism believes in...

Here's another easy one, it pertains to me because I'm Catholic, like the OP: I feel sorry for people closed minded to Catholicism I do not feel sorry for Noncatholic Christians. To me that's pride, that does that. I'm not 'into' pride. It's one of the "capital sins", which is part of our...

Agreed 100% of course. But there is no excuse for rape. This is not an excuse for rape. 'Frigidity' is no excuse for rape, this is cut-and-dried, 'black-and-white' (@User Name @Skeeter ). Is your wife sinning against you yes. She is. STILL no excuse for rape. Rape is never an option...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_education_movement

That picture's pretty cool! How'd you do that? Is that a big telescope, or a smaller private one? Is that one exposure?

The Supreme Court did, and other courts, lots of courts heard cases on the election. If the evidence was there then President Trump would have won. He (rightly) made sure to get 'his day in court'.

President Trump 'had his day in court', multiple times. It was fair. He should have, if that was the result.

Just the link is yours, the rest was my initial answer to it. Do you support publicly funded private schools? Or are you opposed to all public funding for education? This is possibly, probably, arguably true. But it's true for sure that back before Horace Mann's movement to get free...

I call. What is utilitarian legal positivism? Edit. Go ahead and use whatever rhetorical explanation you want. Explain what utilitarian legal positivism is.

Allegedly. Neat thing about our constitution is that it doesn't require a lot of confidence in it and it still works! Ouch. Seriously . . . that stings. Plain.

He's a saint. Love him.

They're elected cheerleaders, a thankful rarity. I've said before, when it looks like we're going to become a nation ruled by cheerleaders, then I'll begin to be concerned.

Yawn. Like dichotomously thinking that twice two is four.

And that's part of this issue, is that the Supreme Court justices sit like kings and queens in some ways, they are according to our constitution possessed of great power, they are in many ways our peak legislators, but our Congress has the power to remove corrupt justices and no (serious)...

Democratic 'cheerleaders' have their 'thing' too though. Democrats have corollaries. The parties don't and can't control these 'grass roots' cheerleaders from 'popping up', and both parties are in the business of winning elections, and so the electioneering calculus has to consider the effect...

My model for a new world order would expand the United States Constitution, so it would preserve our Bill of Rights automatically, and not threaten them.

You can't dismiss this so easily, this is a controversy between differing ethical theories and educational philosophies and the complicating factor that schools are publicly funded. It's a right to pursue happiness against a prohibition of establishing religion, which would only be a problem if...

Half the world is still flooded