Would you consider someone that voted for Barrack Obama to be a baby killer since he obviously has aggressively sought to fund child killing?
toldailytopic: What do you think of Michele Bachmann?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Would you consider someone that voted for Barrack Obama to be a baby killer since he obviously has aggressively sought to fund child killing?
Oh, now one can only be a conservative if one thinks homosexuality is fine and dandy?
Why even pretend you're a conservative?
She backpedals for political expediency.We don't need a leader who cannot judge right from wrong (Lev. 18:22, 20:13, 1 Kin. 14:24, Rom. 1:24, 26, 27, Prov 31:9). :vomit:
On homosexuality: “I am running for the presidency of the United States. I am not running to be anyone’s judge.” Story
She and her husband have openly spoken out against homosexuality for years and she did not renounce anything she has said on the issue in the past. Her husband runs a clinic trying to help homosexuals escape homosexual desires. I have a hard time believing that Bachmann has sold out on the issue.
Christians should be praying that she has the courage to take the stance she has in the past.
What is the alternative? Four more years of Obama?
some other dude
New member
I think her message resonates with a lot of people who are worried about the direction Bammy's been taking this country
and
I think it's hilarious that she gets the loony left frothing at the mouth
drbrumley
Well-known member
BACHMANN NO SUPPORTER of Constitution, either. Here she says what used to be called "internal improvements" (bridges, roads, etc.) are a "legitimate function" for the national government. Not so, said our Founders. President James Madison vetoed a Federal public works bill on March 3, 1817. What he said is here and worth reading:
Thanks to John Lofton
Veto of federal public works bill
March 3, 1817
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.
The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.
"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.
To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.
A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.
If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.
I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
March 3, 1817
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.
The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.
"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.
To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.
A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.
If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.
I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
Thanks to John Lofton
Bachmann wants to wish Elvis a happy birthday today.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/08/16/politics/p114301D80.DTL&tsp=1
:doh:
:chuckle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/08/16/politics/p114301D80.DTL&tsp=1
:doh:
:chuckle:
some other dude
New member
Maybe she meant Elvis Costello?
:doh:
Really, the hits keep on comin'.
Bachmann just seems...I dunno. Tone deaf? Trying too hard?
:mock: Bachmann.
Listen to the interview.
She also misrepresented the biblical teaching of submission. Submission means submission not respect. It's not a popular concept in our God-rejecting, biblically illiterate culture. The country would like to know if she would be their leader if elected. Is it a difficult question?
Mean what you say and say what you mean (Ro 1:16).
Obama thought there were 57 states.
Biden asked a handicapped man to stand up. :shocked: Which is worse?Trivia: How many states are there? Queue Jeopardy Theme (right click, open)
Last edited:
Ron Paul supports legalizing drugs and prostitution. Those ideas are not what the country was founded upon. Nor are they remotely Christian.
Paul, apparently, also doesn't have the sense to recognize Iran obtaining nuclear weapons endangers the free world.
The guy is loony as a liberal on many issues.
I don't she did that when she openly stated she followed her husband's recommendation to go to tax school even though she really didn't want to.
I suppose she could be the nation's leader and her husband could still be the head of the household.
That's why she was asked the question. She had volunteered her view about submission earlier. Byron York asked a follow-up question: Who would run the country when it seems that you do what your husband says. It's a reasonable question.
It's a sorry state of affairs when women must lead. It speaks more of the dandy men in the nation than it does of women.
Choleric
New member
Ron Paul supports individual liberty and accountability. More specifically, he believes drug use and prostitution are states rights issues. THe war on drugs in this country is a waste of a trillion dollars to date. Legalize them, the crime drops, the money is no longer wasted etc. Drug use was legal in this country for much longer than it was illegal and use was far less when it was legal.
Arguments aside, there will not be any candidate that is perfect. If you are looking for a candidate who you will agree with on every single issue, you will be waiting for Christ to return.
While I agree with you that we should have Christian values in this country, the fact is that we don't. In light of the field of candidates, ron Paul is far and away the best candidate. It isn't even close. That is if conservative values, small government, and individual freedom, responsibilit, etc are important to you.
Ron Paul realizes, like more and more Americans every day, that the military industrial complex supports wars because the profit on them. Eisenhower warned about this very thing when he left office. See this video here to watch the actual speech
Much like all the hype over WMD's in Iraq, the evidence is lacking to support Iran and a Nuke. Regardless, we cannot, should not, and have no business policing the world. We cannot fight 5 wars at once. We have no business doing so. Our country is on the verge of complete economic collapse and we cannot afford war.
If Iran ever did anything to provoke war, then I, and Ron Paul, am all for it. Until then, tell the military industrial complex to find another avenue of profiteering.
Ron Paul is the complete opposite of a liberal.
Unlike Rick Perry, who was the campaign manager for Al Gore, who forced an unsafe vaccine on school girls (Gardisil) which was later pulled, who, through back door dealings, killed the anti-TSA groping bill that had unanimous support in the Texas congress.
| #1 Rick Perry is a "big government" politician. When Rick Perry became the governor of Texas in 2000, the total spending by the Texas state government was approximately $49 billion. Ten years later it was approximately $90 billion. That is not exactly reducing the size of government. #2 The debt of the state of Texas is out of control. According to usdebtclock.org, the debt to GDP ratio in Texas is 22.9% and the debt per citizen is $10,645. In California (a total financial basket case), the debt to GDP ratio is just 18.7% and the debt per citizen is only $9932. If Rick Perry runs for president these are numbers he will want to keep well hidden. #3 The total debt of the Texas government has more than doubled since Rick Perry became governor. So what would the U.S. national debt look like after four (or eight) years of Rick Perry? #4 Rick Perry has spearheaded the effort to lease roads in Texas to foreign companies, to turn roads that are already free to drive on into toll roads, and to develop the Trans-Texas Corridor which would be part of the planned NAFTA superhighway system. If you really do deep research on this whole Trans-Texas Corridor nonsense you will see why no American should ever cast a single vote for Rick Perry. #5 Rick Perry claims that he has a "track record" of not raising taxes. That is a false claim. Rick Perry has repeatedly raised taxes and fees while he has been governor. Today, Texans are faced with significantly higher taxes and fees than they were before Rick Perry was elected. #6 Even with the oil boom in Texas, 23 states have a lower unemployment rate than Texas does. #7 Back in 1988, Rick Perry supported Al Gore for president. In fact, Rick Perry actually served as Al Gore's campaign chairman in the state of Texas that year. #8 Between December 2007 and April 2011, weekly wages in the U.S. increased by about 5 percent. In the state of Texas they increased by just 0.6% over that same time period. #9 Texas now has one of the worst education systems in the nation. The following is from an opinion piece that was actually authored by Barbara Bush earlier this year.... • We rank 36th in the nation in high school graduation rates. An estimated 3.8 million Texans do not have a high school diploma. • We rank 49th in verbal SAT scores, 47th in literacy and 46th in average math SAT scores. • We rank 33rd in the nation on teacher salaries. #10 Rick Perry attended the Bilderberg Group meetings in 2007. Associating himself with that organization should be a red flag for all American voters. #11 Texas has the highest percentage of workers making minimum wage out of all 50 states. #12 Rick Perry often gives speeches about illegal immigration, but when you look at the facts, he has been incredibly soft on the issue. If Rick Perry does not plan to secure the border, then he should not be president because illegal immigration is absolutely devastating many areas of the southwest United States. #13 In 2007, 221,000 residents of Texas were making minimum wage or less. By 2010, that number had risen to 550,000. #14 Rick Perry actually issued an executive order in 2007 that would have forced almost every single girl in the state of Texas to receive the Gardasil vaccine before entering the sixth grade. Perry would have put parents in a position where they would have had to fill out an application and beg the government not to inject their child with a highly controversial vaccine. Since then, very serious safety issues regarding this vaccine have come to light. Fortunately, lawmakers in Texas blocked what Perry was trying to do. According to Wikipedia, many were troubled when "apparent financial connections between Merck and Perry were reported by news outlets, such as a $6,000 campaign contribution and Merck's hiring of former Perry Chief of Staff Mike Toomey to handle its Texas lobbying work." |
How about Mitt Romney? He and Perry would have to fight for who is the best faker:
| - created RomneyCare which is terribly similar to ObamaCare but even worse for it openly funds abortion - put Planned Parenthood on the so-called "independent" board he created that offers $50 co-pay abortions - thereby instituted tax-funded abortion on demand two years after his orchestrated "pro-life" conversion - as late as June 2011 continues to defend aborting tens of thousands of kids (denying their God-given right to life) - supported inhumane embryonic research after his false 2004 pro-life conversion - put a pro-abortion Democrat judge on the bench after Romney claimed a pro-life conversion - fabricates a claim that a court ordered him to institute same-sex marriage, a travesty he did completely on his own - bragged that he would continue to defend abortion "rights" after he claimed a pro-life conversion - pro-choice in '94; pro-life in '01; choice '02; pro-life '04; choice '05; life in '06; then funded abortion in '06 |
We could go on and on. Ron Paul may not be perfect, but he is the only conservative running. While Perry and Romney are trying to fake like they are against the Federal Reserve, Ron Paul has been talking about it for 30 years.
No candidate is perfect, but if you are a conservative, Ron Paul is not just your best choice, he is your only choice.