StupidNation Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Maybe it comes back to the people who do need the government to save their ass. In terms you can understand, WWJD? Would he make sure the poor, sick and needy were taken care of or would he take his ball and go home like a bratty little kid? I guess ya'll are at least separating your religion and politics. Social liberalism is not an evil concept - quite the opposite. It's kind of ironic that the hedonist lefties are the ones leading the charge for this sort of thing. You're not going to heaven with this kind of attitude. Sorry but your lack of theology, and ability to reason, is one of the reasons why I even got on this board. I was silently reading statements like this for years wondering how it was unchallenged. Social liberalism is not an evil concept per se when properly understood, but it is when it is gov't mandated. One cannot steal from one person and give to another. Basically I want to be able to choose who and where I want to give. As to theology Christ says we must not know completely consciously how much and to whom we give, but to trust the money given will be for His sake. That is not the same thing as mandated theft at threat of arrest. St. Paul says those who do not work shall not eat. Basically the difference between religious charity and gov't mandated social state is simple, but completely misplaced by political liberalism, which (oddly) is also mostly against the social teaching of Christianity (strange how selective Christianity is these days). -In Christianity it is the individual who chooses to give of their free will and will thereby insure the stability of private property and the difference between liberality and license. -In Gov't sponsored welfare it is the state which mandates your money under threat of arrest and compromises the most basic right of private property against the welfare of the individual. People should give of their own accord, not because you say so. You violate the right of private property in order to gain another good of helping another. The law of double-effect does not apply here in morality as the principle act is evil in itself, and you cannot judge consequent acts to justify initial immorality. One cannot do evil in the hopes good comes from it. Tax me when it comes to things I'm being represented on, but don't violate the rights of private property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Supreme Court Justice Alito's own words during his confirmation: ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. ... And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. [...] And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/a...k_n_208531.html Is Alito a racist because he would use his ethnic background to help decide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Social liberalism is not an evil concept per se when properly understood, but it is when it is gov't mandated. One cannot steal from one person and give to another. Basically I want to be able to choose who and where I want to give. As to theology Christ says we must not know completely consciously how much and to whom we give, but to trust the money given will be for His sake. That is not the same thing as mandated theft at threat of arrest. Being that I'm not trying to get into heaven, I have no need to separate intent from result, so there's no spiritual advantage from my perspective in HOW resources are redistributed. Incidentally, I'd absolutely love to see the biblical quote where Christ talks about government not being a part of charitable contribution. It seems to me that he wouldn't care - provided the less fortunate were taken care of. Face it, Jesus was a Socialist. Feel free to continue to spin your religion so that it fits your political ideology. I'll laugh as you twist and turn. Lord forgive him He's got them dark forces in him But he's also got a righteous cause for sinning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Supreme Court Justice Alito's own words during his confirmation: ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. ... And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. [...] And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/a...k_n_208531.html Is Alito a racist because he would use his ethnic background to help decide? A conservative has every God given right to be a racist. You didn't know that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 I don't know much about her, and in my limited time to reseach I still don't know much. It was interesting though this morning while getting dressed. Local news had some whack job lliberal who was complaining that neither the left nor the right know where she stands on abortion. Said that this womens group (may have been NOW) wanted to find out where she stood before they could support her. What they didn't want was some activist judge on the Supreme Court who was going to take it upon herself and overturn the "CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Roe vs Wade". When did Roe v Wade become a constitutional amendment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 When did Roe v Wade become a constitutional amendment? ....its coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 A conservative has every God given right to be a racist. You didn't know that? And you have every God given right to be a moron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 And you have every God given right to be a moron I am not sure that was God given. It just happened. Of course post birth abortions are not legal yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I am not sure that was God given. It just happened. Even God makes mistakes. He made B4FL in that image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 In all three of her cases involving abortion, she ruled in favor of the pro-life side. Granted, they were not directly ruling on abortions per se (and I'm sure that she's pro-choice). That's some liberal activist judge, huh? From the WSJ... Judge Sotomayor has ruled on only three cases indirectly related to abortion, and in each instance she took the position preferred by the pro-life forces, albeit for reasons unrelated to the merits of abortion. In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, she ruled against the pro-choice group wanting to overturn the Bush administration’s ban on family planning funds going to abortion. Constitutionally, she wrote, the government “is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds.” In Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford, she ruled in favor of the rights of anti-abortion protesters. In Lin v. Gonzales,she ruled in favor of a Chinese woman who sought asylum in part because of the forced sterilization and abortion policies of the Chinese government. Her reasons had nothing to do with abortion –- instead relating to matters of constitutional law and criminal procedure -– but at a minimum, it showed that whatever her abortion views, it didn’t produce some powerful inclination against the pro-life position. http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2009/0...rtion-centrist/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 In all three of her cases involving abortion, she ruled in favor of the pro-life side. Granted, they were not directly ruling on abortions per se (and I'm sure that she's pro-choice). That's some liberal activist judge, huh? She is Catholic, so I wonder if the right would mind if she used her background and experiences to rule against Roe v Wade. But it was reported that she told Obama that she believes in leaving "settled law" alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 She is Catholic, so I wonder if the right would mind if she used her background and experiences to rule against Roe v Wade. But it was reported that she told Obama that she believes in leaving "settled law" alone. So I guess that holds true for the Second Amendment after Heller, huh? Somehow I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 So I guess that holds true for the Second Amendment after Heller, huh? Somehow I doubt it. Yes, the 2nd amendment as it pertains to Heller is settled law. But the type of weapon (automatic, semiautomatic) is still open to interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Yes, the 2nd amendment as it pertains to Heller is settled law. But the type of weapon (automatic, semiautomatic) is still open to interpretation. Nice try... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 This all might be moot. She's $400,000 in debt and living paycheck to paycheck. "The documents described Sotomayor's finances, which paint a portrait of a New Yorker in an expensive neighborhood who may be living largely paycheck to paycheck. She has $1.16 million in assets, but $418,350 in debts, including her mortgage, credit card bills and a big dentist bill. Previous financial disclosure reports showed her with an annual income of about $200,000" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/04...records-senate/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 This all might be moot. She's $400,000 in debt and living paycheck to paycheck. "The documents described Sotomayor's finances, which paint a portrait of a New Yorker in an expensive neighborhood who may be living largely paycheck to paycheck. She has $1.16 million in assets, but $418,350 in debts, including her mortgage, credit card bills and a big dentist bill. Previous financial disclosure reports showed her with an annual income of about $200,000" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/04...records-senate/ What do you mean "moot"? She's ass-deep in debt, has a mortgage she obviously can't afford, and is living paycheck-to-paycheck. If that profile isn't begging for an Obama handout, I don't know what does. She should slide into this Supreme Court post like an Washington state illegal alient slipping into a free work visa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 This all might be moot. She's $400,000 in debt and living paycheck to paycheck. "The documents described Sotomayor's finances, which paint a portrait of a New Yorker in an expensive neighborhood who may be living largely paycheck to paycheck. She has $1.16 million in assets, but $418,350 in debts, including her mortgage, credit card bills and a big dentist bill. Previous financial disclosure reports showed her with an annual income of about $200,000" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/04...records-senate/ Note the "may be" in the quote is missing from your intro? You should work for Fox News. Also, $1.16 million in assets minus $418,350 in debt does NOT equal $400,000 in debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 This all might be moot. She's $400,000 in debt and living paycheck to paycheck. "The documents described Sotomayor's finances, which paint a portrait of a New Yorker in an expensive neighborhood who may be living largely paycheck to paycheck. She has $1.16 million in assets, but $418,350 in debts, including her mortgage, credit card bills and a big dentist bill. Previous financial disclosure reports showed her with an annual income of about $200,000" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/04...records-senate/ No biggie. Reid and Pelosi will give her, her own stimulis PKG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 What do you mean "moot"? She's ass-deep in debt, has a mortgage she obviously can't afford, and is living paycheck-to-paycheck. If that profile isn't begging for an Obama handout, I don't know what does. She should slide into this Supreme Court post like an Washington state illegal alient slipping into a free work visa. C'mon...it's a life enriching experience to have the same woes as peasants. Remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 What are the assets though..Are they liquid? Just because her home maybe assessed at X amount does not mean she will get X amount in a sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts