Demonstrably insane, yet conservatives keep electing them by the bushel.
I'm sure when she said church she really meant church, synagogue, mosque, or temple.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f6e62/f6e62135a4d18d3f4f81c5aef7608f2bd1ed41e9" alt="giphy.gif"
Demonstrably insane, yet conservatives keep electing them by the bushel.
I'm sure when she said church she really meant church, synagogue, mosque, or temple.
You realize he isn't really the Devil, don't you?
Perhaps not but he lives in Ottumwa so he's seen hell.
Every.Single. F'ng.day.Perhaps not but he lives in Ottumwa so he's seen hell.
No. Not really.
In this case, it's really beyond any other stupid suggestions that have been made. The entire country was founded on, in a big part, not having a state religion. Making church attendance legally mandatory is about as un-American as it gets.
And it's really, truly informative that you chose this time to "point out" hypocrisy. Probably because for all your lip service about how you're not a statist, you generally align with the worst of the statists. Must be that Southern lifestyle that causes you to be sympathetic to those religious crazies.
This has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You're trying to change the subject now.
I would hope more than 95%, but you may be right. There are some obtuse absolutists around here who can't discern proper government functions from improper and thus resolve to flush all of civilization rather then puzzle with balance.I'm talking about you rightfully being irritated over someone trying to use the government to enforce their beliefs that infringe upon your liberty, yet you are more than willing to use the government to force people to live by your beliefs that infringe upon their liberty. That's it. Period. You are a hypocrite. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's constitutional or whether or not you think it should be constitutional.
You. Are. A. Hypocrite.
I wouldn't worry about it too much, 95% of the people on this board are probably just like you.
In all honesty, if you throw out the people,the roads and dilapidated buildings its not too bad a place to reside.Perhaps not but he lives in Ottumwa so he's seen hell.
I would hope more than 95%, but you may be right. There are some obtuse absolutists around here who can't discern proper government functions from improper and thus resolve to flush all of civilization rather then puzzle with balance.
I don't think democratic popular rule balanced with enforceable civil rights needs much support from me. But you should be an expert at tyranny as that's your preferance. That's what you get when you remove all the laws and regulations that maintain peaceful liberty for all.The term "proper government functions" is subjective. Why does mobs rules get to decide what liberty we do and do not get to have, and how can you justify this tyranny of the masses?
I don't think democratic popular rule balanced with enforceable civil rights needs much support from me. But you should be an expert at tyranny as that's your preferance. That's what you get when you remove all the laws and regulations that maintain peaceful liberty for all.
On some of these points we agree. And if you want to change some of these you should vote for the reps who will vote the way you like, or run yourself. But laws are a requirement for Liberty. They provide the nessisary boundaries for duty and responsibility that hold back license and produce the state of Liberty. I school you on this in your prior stint here, I see you have forgotten what Liberty is.But the laws I'm talking about don't maintain liberty. The income tax is not liberty. Massive government spending is not liberty. The ACA is not liberty. The NDAA 2012 is not liberty. The Patriot Act is not liberty. You may think that all these should be the law of the land, but that doesn't make them liberty. Are you so dense that you can't differentiate between your wishes and liberty?