See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Why some people are terrified of CHUCK BALDWIN
Source:
LibertyPost
URL Source: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=234674&Disp=9#C9
Published: Aug 16, 2008
Author: thangdatrang
Post Date: 2008-08-16 21:56:43 by Rotara
Keywords: None
Views: 1924
Comments: 171
Because Chuck Baldwin says: I PUT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY FIRST, NOT THE GLOBAL ECONOMY Poster Comment: Come, anti-Christians, and spew your bile here you sorry mixed bag of LOSERS! ;-)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-82) not displayed.
.
.
.
#83. To: buckeye (#80)
I should expand on my opinion regarding the death penalty. I support it in theory. My problem is I sure wouldn't want to get the wrong person. So although I am for it, I wouldn't want to burden of meting out that sentence. But with a woman trying to kill her baby. Well that leaves out all doubt.
Hey good post. Your thoughts mirror many of my own.
No, you are being highly inconsistent. Either human life is precious, or it ain't. If human beings have no perogerative to end life in the womb, then it is a fool's errand to claim the ends justifies the means in killing captive, imprisioned human beings. We are not dogs and cats to put to sleep out of a blood thirty and self ingraciating sense of revenge, we are human beings who deserve to have the perogerative of our maker to decide when a life is at an end. At best capital punishment is a pander politicians use to appeal to the worst in people, it is never applied fairly across the board, does not deter crime, and empowers people to act as judge, jury and executioner on their own.
Don't take this personal but I have long held the view that Christians are hypocrites when it comes to the issue of life most treat Gods word like a Chinese menu picking those passages that best fit their own agenda....if one is pro-life that means as stated in Romans 12:17 "Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengence is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord For me that pretty much sums up what pro-life means...no gray areas there!
Thank you very much.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I am against killing innocent life that commited no crime. That is different then being for killing the savages and murderers who take action and kill an innocent person. I'm sorry you can't see that Mike. There should be lots of safeguards as to make sure innocent people aren't found guilty at trial.
At best capital punishment is a pander politicians use to appeal to the worst in people, it is never applied fairly across the board, does not deter crime, and empowers people to act as judge, jury and executioner on their own. I agree that politicians pander with the Death Penalty. I agree that it isn't applied "fairly" across the board. I think that it does deter some crime but obviously not all crime. Mike Obama is for killing babies making him the opposite of your point that "we are human beings who deserve to have the perogerative of our maker to decide when a life is at an end." So it seems that you are letting your morals slide on this issue.
I don't take it personal. You make a good and valid point. Yes many christians are hypocrites at times. Myself included. What you quote in Romans I believe talks about an individual. Elsewhere in Romans it does talk about civil authority. I support the death penalty in theory. I would never want to be the one to have to carry it out, unless it involved my family. If someone killed my kid. I would want to take out vengence on that person. Would I go so far as to do it. I don't know and don't want to know. If that makes me a hypocrit so be it. I talked about a woman getting an abortion (attempted murder) dying in the act. All I said is that I would have no sympathy for her. None at all. Not even a little. That is different then some lone nut going out and killing women who had abortions.
The death penalty is never applied equitably or fairly using your alleged standards of application. It cheapens the currency of huiman life and empowered others to justify their thuggery and murder to advance their own selfish objectives and purient self interest. Ending capital punishment is am important step the United States needs to take to step toward advancing human rights and to end violence. It never advances justice, creates irreversable injustices, and is not done for justice, but to satisfy bloodlust in those applying it that is too uncomfortably simular to that of anyone breaking the law to murder themselves. You are wrong, and do not like this penalty because of a sense of justice, but to satify what is the worst in your own character as a human being. WE all have our moments in this regard concerning a desire to be vengeful, but in acting upon it, we lower ourselves to the level of murderers, and create an environment which precipitates and encourages other unjust and blood thirty killings by other human beings and human entities such as governments elsewhere in the world.
Mike what you said is well thought out. I can kind of understand where you are coming from. I support the death penalty in "theory". If they got the right guy every time I would fully support it. But they don't. If the death penalty went the way of the Dodo it wouldn't bother me to much. I don't want to see innocent people put to death for crimes that they didn't do. If they really did do it I would have no problem putting them to death for things such as murder. To take an innocent life by willingly killing another is so wrong and if there was a way to do it right every time and punish the murderer with death. I think that would be just.
I think that you are half right here. Sometimes it doesn't advance justice. But when they get it right it does.
I understand the power of vengeance however if you ever talk to someone who has taken a life it stays with them till the day they die thats why I feel for all those grunts.. no fun living with deaths demons better to leave that to God
So it seems that you are letting your morals slide on this issue. Our entire nation in every sense ... rationalizes harmony with and truly worships the god of government, ignoring their real benefactor / Creator while refusing to admit it. The God of the Bible clearly states that you can't serve two Masters ... most Christians attempt this when they finance Uncle Sambo so he can murder little kids in Arabic countries and then run to church on SUNday to profess their faith. [Christ warned against hurting "one" of these little ones]. Faith is acting righteously upon trust in the author and Creator of the Universe knowing that this entity holds all power over all things. Setting the example of faith by honoring the Creator's commands regardless of what men say. (Peter stated "whose laws should we obey, men's or God's ?) The Scripture that illustrates the danger to the hypocrits of Christianity is the one where Christ speaks of the resurrection before the throne of judgment, and many cry out that they have healed the sick and removed demons in "His" name ... to which "He" replies ... "DEPART FROM ME for I HAVE NEVER KNOWN YOU" Hypocrisy and Truth have no relationship with each other.
"Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the Government of the United States." "Mr. Chairman, the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here that the United States was to be lowered to the position of a coolie country. . and was to supply financial power to an international superstate -- a superstate controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the World for their own pleasure."
Hope you are not taking Romans 13 out of context allow me..... It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect. No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way. Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose President Bush or any other political leader really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that. For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law? So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.) By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Romans Chapter 13 by Chuck Baldwin
I haven't read all of what you said yet. But let me start with this. I interpret Romans narrowly. Kind of like the constitution. What are the "delegated" powers to the governments. I believe they have the legitimate functions mentioned in Romans 13 and maybe elsewhere and no more. Not redestributing wealth or other such stuff governments are involved in today.
I think we are largely on the same page.
26,000 Pastors for Martial Law Continuity of Government FEMA Recruiting Pastors To Prepare For Martial Law Logged In Members don't see these ads! Join for Free Today! A Pastor has come forward to blow the whistle on a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to "obey the government" in preparation for a declaration of martial law, property and firearm seizures, and forced relocation. In March of this year the Pastor, who we shall refer to as Pastor Revere, was invited to attend a meeting of his local FEMA chapter which circulated around preparedness for a potential bio-terrorist attack, any natural disaster or a nationally declared emergency. The FEMA directors told the Pastors that attended that it was their job to help implement FEMA and Homeland Security directives in anticipation of any of these eventualities. The first directive was for Pastors to preach to their congregations Romans 13, the often taken out of context bible passage that was used by Hitler to hoodwink Christians into supporting him, in order to teach them to "obey the government" when martial law is declared.
He thinks present day Israel is still is worthy to be protected becasue of his misunderstanding of scriptures. Until he can understand that is not the case then I can't vote for him. Also his love affair with the confederate battle flag bothers me as well. I won't be voting for anybody for President becasue there is no one running that is worthy of my vote.
God is always good!
Good points. Also, isn't anyone here troubled by the fact that a pastor is running for President? I think it's unbelievable that in a pluralistic secular nation as our own a religious minister is running for the highest office in the land. And I would be equally troubled if Baldwin were a priest, rabbi, cleric, whatever. The head of a church or synagogue or mosque should not be heading our nation. It's constitutionally inappropriate.
Our Constitution rejects religious tests in federal government, for or against any particular affiliation or non-affiliation, or beliefs.
buck, I used the phrase "constitutionally inappropriate" not unconstitutional - and a pastor as President, as head of state, is constitutionally inappropriate - it would not be in keeping with the spirit, the vision of our Founding Fathers for our fair nation
The American revolution was preached from pulpits across the colonies. The First Great Awakening had a strong role in firing the colonial mind. A pastor who could raise similar awareness today would be invaluable.
But a pastor in the Oval Office would make him part of the establishment rulers, right, as opposed to the scenario you described wherein religious leaders were outside the establishment and were not part of the problem that needed to be changed . Furthermore a pastor in the Oval Office would alienate not coalesce the public at large - in America today, there are people of different faiths, different versions of Christianity itself.
I'm talking about the ideal pastor with a true commitment to liberty, including a solid and proven track record of criticizing government meddling in cases of religious liberty, as well as governments being used as tools for achieving religious dominionism. In practice, I might tend to side with you.
Indeed. ...Revolutionary America's most famous orator, Patrick Henry, called patriots to arms in cadences borrowed from itinerant evangelists. Religion played other important roles in mobilizing support for Revolution regardless of whether it was evangelical or not. Colonists often encountered Revolutionary themes for the first time when local ministers announced the latest news from the pulpit or when parishioners exchanged information after Sunday meetings. Ministers occupied an important place in the colonial communications network throughout the eighteenth century, especially in towns where few people had access to newspapers and official information was dispensed from the pulpit or lectern. Sunday afternoons provided a convenient time for men who had already gathered for worship to form militia units and drill, and many ministers used their sermons to motivate the minutemen. Israel Litchfield, a young Massachusetts minuteman, recorded that his local minister keyed biblical texts and sermon themes to the great events of 1775. Reverend Ebenezer Grosvenor situated the people of Scituate within a cosmic drama pitting the New English Israel against red-coated enemies of God, and urged the militiamen who would drill that afternoon to prepare well for the conflict. In Virginia's Shenendoah Valley the Lutheran minister John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg concluded a Sunday sermon of 1775 by throwing back his ministerial robe to reveal a military uniform, rolling the drum for Patriot recruits, and leading them out for drill. Few ministers matched Muhlenberg's flair for drama, but many throughout the colonies used their pulpits to mobilize resistance. THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND THE RELIGIOUS PUBLIC SPHERE The fact is that preachers played a major role in the American Revolution against England. Anyone who denies this doesn't know much American history.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Do you assume that there is not even one honorable man who, if elected to office, would not roll over and play dead or go along to get along? I sincerely doubt that Chuck Baldwin could be controlled by the folks who control Bush and who will control McCain and/or Obama.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Imo, they're all state issues. They all are like honey to single issue knuckle-draggers, have nothing to do with economics or defense. They provide fodder for demagogues thereby allowing fringers to decide elections.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
In practice, I might tend to side with you. But buck, Pastor Baldwin is not an intellectual ideal construct. He is a real person, who is a pastor of a specific congregation. He carries very distinct biases and priorities as a result of his religious affiliation that are in conflict with constitutional principles, both against the spirit, the vision of the Founding Fathers who themselves were largely deists as well as against the legal applications of the constitution today. He could not represent America or Americans as a result. He represents his religious flock very well and that's the venue where he'd be best to stay, imo.
You honestly believe that Chuck Baldwin is not a better man and that he would not make a much better president than Obama or McCain???
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Yes I honestly believe that Pastor Baldwin is unsuitable for the Oval Office, a leadership position. He is not an AmericaFirster, frankly. His deficits are different from McCain's or Obama's but a vote for any of the 3 men would be a vote for a lesser of the 3 evils depending on one's perspective on evil.
I strongly suspect that you have read very few, if any, of Chuck Baldwin's articles. He stands head and shoulders above Obama and McCain and would even if they were ten times the men they are (which still wouldn't be a lot).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You are correct. I have read little of what the good Baptist pastor has written. What I have read was the article link that robnoel inserted to this thread, wherein Pastor Baldwin defended Ron Paul's position on Israel. But in the course of Pastor Baldwin's argument, he presents half-truths about Israel and about our current government's relationship with Israel. This shows to me that Pastor Baldwin struggles with what he would do, as opposed to what he says should be done. Since Pastor Baldwin could not tell the full truth in the article cited by robnoel, I find that dishonesty disturbing. Our current ME foreign policy is AmericaLast/IsraelFirst. I have no confidence in Pastor Baldwin changing the course that has been set for America starting with LBJ's Administration. Baldwin's religious outlook would interfere and cloud his judgment when it came to reversing America's current ME foreign policy. I have no doubt whatsoever. Obama and McCain have been coopted by lobby groups to maintain status quo in our AmericaLast ME foreign policy. Baldwin has been compromised by his religious mindset. Different influences but the end result is the same in all 3 men. For me, misguided foreign policy is the greatest single threat to America's future. Protecting the unborn blah blah pales in comparison from my point of view. Abortion is not bleeding US blood and treasure in the ME - foreign policy is.
Only someone without vision can see no difference between Chuck Baldwin and the two establishment lunatics, Obama and McCain. I feel sorry for anyone who is so blind.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. My vision is 20/20. I suggest you get yours re-checked. And just because Pastor Baldwin is not a Beltway establishment candidate does not mean he's free of deleterious connections.
Chuck Baldwin has a chance if enough people mistake him as a Baldwin from the family of actors with that name, that's about it. ;-D
With all due respect the stand for life trumps everything else.... "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man. Though the commonly known phrase is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as written above, the exact quote, as written in the original document is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of personal happiness." Please note nothing about "foreign policy"
It is very obvious the Religious Right has become little more than a propaganda mill for the GOP. In their lust and hunger to sit at the king’s right hand, they are willing to compromise their principles, no matter how important they are to them. As such, it has become a hollow movement. They are now a movement without a cause, except for the chore they take on of advancing the Republican Party.” James Dobson who once said “I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances” now supports him. How does this make sense? I mean, if family values are a main focus of his movement, how can he condone the shallow, self serving behavior McCain displayed to his first wife when he dumped her for the younger and very rich beer heiress Cindy Hensley? And how does Obama, a man who has been married to the same woman for nearly two decades with two daughters to show for it, “contradict” and “threaten” Dobson’s view of the family? One thing is certain, he and other leaders of this movement will have at least four years in the socio-religious-political wilderness to reflect on the bizarre spectacle they represent to the rest of us and their flock as they try to figure out what they are doing wrong and how not to repeat their role in this upcoming defeat of the GOP in the general election.
Please note nothing about "foreign policy" And I'm sure you would agree that US Constitution - written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789 - is the written charter which gives the US government its marching orders, so to speak. In the US Constitution, its first three words – “We The People” – confirms that the government of the United States exists to serve American citizens. Israeli citizens are not American citizens. The US government is constitutionally prohibited from serving any citizens outside its own citizenry - Israel is not a US state and therefore Israel's citizens are not the constitutional responsibility of the US government. Unborn fetuses are not US citizens and therefore the US government is not constitutionally obligated to serve them.
Although I agree with you on this Israeli citizens are not American citizens. The US government is constitutionally prohibited from serving any citizens outside its own citizenry - Israel is not a US state and therefore Israel's citizens are not the constitutional responsibility of the US government. This is pure BS Unborn fetuses are not US citizens and therefore the US government is not constitutionally obligated to serve them.
The Founding Fathers saw the dangers of European influence where church and king were intertwined and that's why the Founding Fathers specifically provided for a separation of church and state in their vision for America. Having a Pastor Baldwin figure, or a Rabbi Baldwin figure, or a Cleric Baldwin figure in the White House is antiethical to the Founding Fathers' conceptual dream for America. Furthermore family values are warm fuzzy mushy watch words for a movie script but how do family values help a President to save America from its single worst threat to its future survival - ie foreign entanglements and 24/7 militarism?
Comments (123 - 171) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestI came to respect Ron Paul's position on federal capital punishment for one reason: the federal government can use it to intimidate people, and the central government already has too much power over life and limb. States should decide life and death issues, based on the Constitution, according to Ron Paul.
#84. To: James Deffenbach (#77)
#85. To: Old Friend (#78)
"No it is because I am being consistent. If one actually thinks abortion is murder as I know it is. Then you should support the death penalty for murderers. Especially if you support the death penalty for other crimes."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#86. To: Old Friend (#79)
#87. To: Old Friend (#84)
Hey good post. Your thoughts mirror many of my own.
Lord Acton
#88. To: Ferret Mike (#85)
No, you are being highly inconsistent. Either human life is precious, or it ain't. If human beings have no perogerative to end life in the womb, then it is a fool's errand to claim the ends justifies the means in killing captive, imprisioned human beings.
#89. To: Ferret Mike (#85)
We are not dogs and cats to put to sleep out of a blood thirty and self ingraciating sense of revenge, we are human beings who deserve to have the perogerative of our maker to decide when a life is at an end.
#90. To: robnoel (#86)
Don't take this personal but I have long held the view that Christians are hypocrites when it comes to the issue of life most treat Gods word like a Chinese menu picking those passages that best fit their own agenda....if one is pro-life that means as stated in Romans 12:17 "Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengence is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord
#91. To: Old Friend (#88)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#92. To: Ferret Mike (#91)
WE all have our moments in this regard concerning a desire to be vengeful, but in acting upon it, we lower ourselves to the level of murderers, and create an environment which precipitates and encourages other unjust and blood thirty killings by other human beings and human entities such as governments elsewhere in the world.
#93. To: Ferret Mike (#91)
It never advances justice, creates irreversable injustices
#94. To: Old Friend (#90)
#95. To: Old Friend (#89)
Mike Obama is for killing babies making him the opposite of your point that "we are human beings who deserve to have the perogerative of our maker to decide when a life is at an end."
#96. To: Old Friend (#90)
(Edited)
Elsewhere in Romans it does talk about civil authority
#97. To: robnoel (#96)
It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.
#98. To: robnoel (#96)
#99. To: Old Friend (#97)
#100. To: Rotara (#0)
(Edited)
#101. To: RickyJ, All (#100)
He thinks present day Israel is still is worthy to be protected becasue of his misunderstanding of scriptures. Until he can understand that is not the case then I can't vote for him. Also his love affair with the confederate battle flag bothers me as well.
#102. To: scrapper2 (#101)
#103. To: buckeye (#102)
Our Constitution rejects religious tests in federal government, for or against any particular affiliation or non-affiliation, or beliefs.
#104. To: scrapper2 (#103)
#105. To: buckeye (#104)
(Edited)
The American revolution was preached from pulpits across the colonies. The First Great Awakening had a strong role in firing the colonial mind. A pastor who could raise similar awareness today would be invaluable.
#106. To: scrapper2 (#105)
But a pastor in the Oval Office would make him part of the establishment rulers...
#107. To: buckeye (#104)
Lord Acton
#108. To: scrapper2 (#105)
But a pastor in the Oval Office would make him part of the establishment rulers, right, as opposed to the scenario you described wherein religious leaders were outside the establishment and were not part of the problem that needed to be changed .
Lord Acton
#109. To: HOUNDDAWG (#13)
Baldwin supports The Defense Of Marriage Act and and a national abortion ban. But, he (says he) believes that medical marijuana is a state issue and the feds shouldn't get involved.
#110. To: buckeye (#106)
(Edited)
I'm talking about the ideal pastor...
#111. To: scrapper2 (#110)
He is a real person, who is a pastor of a specific congregation. He carries very distinct biases and priorities as a result of his religious affiliation that are in conflict with constitutional principles, both against the spirit, the vision of the Founding Fathers who themselves were largely deists as well as against the legal applications of the constitution today. He could not represent America or Americans as a result. He represents his religious flock very well and that's the venue where he'd be best to stay, imo.
Lord Acton
#112. To: James Deffenbach (#111)
You honestly believe that Chuck Baldwin is not a better man and that he would not make a much better president than Obama or McCain???
#113. To: scrapper2 (#112)
Lord Acton
#114. To: James Deffenbach, robnoel, buckeye (#113)
(Edited)
I strongly suspect that you have read very few, if any, of Chuck Baldwin's articles. He stands head and shoulders above Obama and McCain and would even if they were ten times the men they are (which still wouldn't be a lot).
#115. To: scrapper2 (#114)
Lord Acton
#116. To: James Deffenbach (#115)
Only someone without vision can see no difference between Chuck Baldwin and the two establishment lunatics, Obama and McCain. I feel sorry for anyone who is so blind.
#117. To: scrapper2 (#116)
(Edited)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#118. To: scrapper2 (#114)
#119. To: James Deffenbach (#115)
(Edited)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#120. To: robnoel (#118)
With all due respect the stand for life trumps everything else.... "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man. Though the commonly known phrase is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as written above, the exact quote, as written in the original document is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of personal happiness."
#121. To: scrapper2 (#120)
#122. To: Ferret Mike, robnoel (#119)
their lust and hunger to sit at the king’s right hand...I mean, if family values
.
.
.