advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: PeterB
Date: May 11, 2022 12:41PM
... should be happening soon, about 3PM EST. Watch here: [www.c-span.org]

... I'm sure there won't be any surprises; Manchin, Collins, and Murkowski have already said that they're voting no. Still, I do think it's good that the Dems are getting the votes on record.




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Racer X
Date: May 11, 2022 02:03PM
Couldn't some flat tires have been arranged? secret smiley



********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: PeterB
Date: May 11, 2022 03:52PM
Quote
Racer X
Couldn't some flat tires have been arranged? secret smiley

Quite.

Also, I wondered if anyone would abstain, or if that's even an option for this vote... and how that might affect an outcome. (Not that it would happen here, just hypothetically.)

Collins and Murkowski have advanced their own version of the bill, but the problem is that theirs is very nonspecific and doesn't have the backing of any pro-choice organizations (nor did they consult with any such organizations before writing their bill).




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: pdq
Date: May 11, 2022 03:58PM
I hope no one is fooled by the Murkowski/Collins fig leaf bill.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Speedy
Date: May 11, 2022 04:05PM
49-51. It needed 60 votes which would never happen.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: PeterB
Date: May 11, 2022 04:40PM
Quote
Speedy
49-51. It needed 60 votes which would never happen.

Yup. But it's now on the record, which could be a big problem for the Repubs come November if Roe gets overturned. I think some folks may not realize how much of a fallout there'll be from that -- that it's not just abortion that'll get tossed, but also some types of contraception, IVF, etc. Then there'll inevitably be conflicts between states where abortion is legal, versus those where it isn't. It's a huge can of whoop@$$ waiting to be opened.




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Speedy
Date: May 11, 2022 04:44PM
Once overturned, you have to continue to elect Repugs so that there can never be a law that would overturn the decision. Ever!



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Steve G.
Date: May 11, 2022 04:47PM
Every single Republican plus Manchin.
Make sure Americans know who to vote against...The Republicans.

This is the showdown folks.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: PeterB
Date: May 11, 2022 05:12PM
Quote
Steve G.
Every single Republican, includingplus Manchin.
Make sure Americans know who to vote against...the traitorsThe Republicans.

This is the showdown folks.

FTFY.




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2022 05:13PM by PeterB.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: May 11, 2022 07:23PM
Does anybody find it ironic that Republicans are preparing to force a new generation to have unwanted kids during a baby formula shortage and child care staffing crisis?

Maybe this will finally get the 18-35 voter turnout over 30%.



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: PeterB
Date: May 11, 2022 07:33PM
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Does anybody find it ironic that Republicans are preparing to force a new generation to have unwanted kids during a baby formula shortage and child care staffing crisis?

Maybe this will finally get the 18-35 voter turnout over 30%.

You forgot to mention, also during a period of deep economic hardship and racial turmoil... while children are being killed off in another country and the Republicans vote against giving additional aid to them... oh, and let's also not forget, during a pandemic with a lethal disease; one for which we don't currently yet have the approval to vaccinate babies and young kids.




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Sam3
Date: May 12, 2022 03:33AM
And yet the media is ignoring all the positives that Biden has accomplished.

No talk about the positives, only negatives = low ratings of the President

The media is becoming complicit in our fall toward autocracy. I don't want to hear their wailing when their power gets taken away after Democracy falls.



The arts are not luxuries but assets that give way more than they cost.
--Ronald Tucker on YouTube

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.
--Frank Zappa
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Speedy
Date: May 12, 2022 05:18AM
Quote
Sam3
The media is becoming complicit in our fall toward autocracy. I don't want to hear their wailing when their power gets taken away after Democracy falls.

There won’t be any wailing by the media in an autocracy.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: NewtonMP2100
Date: May 12, 2022 07:02AM
....stoopid Munchin.....



_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Lux Interior
Date: May 12, 2022 07:45AM
Quote
Sam3
And yet the media is ignoring all the positives that Biden has accomplished.

No talk about the positives, only negatives = low ratings of the President

The media is becoming complicit in our fall toward autocracy. I don't want to hear their wailing when their power gets taken away after Democracy falls.

What?

Did you actually think the media was "Liberal"?

That was the second greatest trick the Devil pulled off.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: PeterB
Date: May 12, 2022 08:40AM
Quote
Sam3
And yet the media is ignoring all the positives that Biden has accomplished.

No talk about the positives, only negatives = low ratings of the President

The media is becoming complicit in our fall toward autocracy. I don't want to hear their wailing when their power gets taken away after Democracy falls.

I think a big part of the problem is that it's hard to prove a negative. For example, what would have happened to our economy had Biden NOT done what he's done? People are complaining about the economy and gas prices, etc., but had he not taken the steps he has, things could actually be quite worse. An interesting perspective from late 2021: [www.reuters.com]




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Diana
Date: May 12, 2022 11:01AM
Has anyone (meaning either you guys or the Washington @#$%& [formally referred to herein as the WW]) actually read the proposed Women's Health Protection Act?

Have you compared it to what the WW said in the Senate vote?

This proves that none of them apparently can read, or comprehend, or whatever ... like what is required to do their job.

The proposed Act says only one thing about abortion up to and including the moment of birth: it is only permitted if, in a doctor's medical opinion, that the woman's life or health is significantly jeopardized if the pregnancy is continued PAST the point of fetal viability. The only person specifically said who can make that decision is the health care provider, not the woman. Prior to the point of fetal viability, it is clear in saying that it is the woman's choice; she doesn't have to give a reason, the hoops that she is currently having to jump through are not allowed, the harassment she suffers is not allowed ....

The only difference I can see is that it codifies what is CURRENTLY permitted, not expands it.

But the biggest thing is at the bottom of the Act. Any state or government official, as described in the Act itself, is NOT immune if they violate the provisions of the act:

"(f) Abrogation Of State Immunity.—Neither a State that enforces or maintains, nor a government official (including a person described in section 7(c)) who is permitted to implement or enforce any limitation or requirement that violates section 4 shall be immune under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or any other source of law, from an action in a Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction challenging that limitation or requirement."

So yeah, they can be sued and they can and will LOSE in a court of law.

This is NOT about protecting women, or the child, or the unborn, as they seem to imply or even explicitly state, but rather that they cannot impose their religious beliefs on others with impunity.

Hey, WW, do your freaking jobs! Read the bill(s) presented to you! THINK!!!!!!

If you cannot read something, cannot think about it, or cannot understand it, then it is time for you to go: get out of the way. Oh, and BTW, it isn't all about you but the American People. It isn't about you, or lining your pocket, or listening to only a vocal minority of your constituents--you represent US, as in all of us. Act like it.

A form of this is going to my Senator, even if I doubt that either he nor anyone in his office will read it. It will also go to those that may be elected in his place.

Edit: messages sent (to both of them). Research is underway as to replacement.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2022 11:36AM by Diana.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: PeterB
Date: May 12, 2022 01:37PM
Diana, the problem is that some of them DID read it, they just don't agree with it.

As one example, they weren't willing to pass something which outlawed the requirement of parental notification/consent. They see this as codifying something which goes beyond what is already allowed, since some states require this... therefore an expansion. (At least in their minds.)

It comes back to the issue that we're no longer a "United States of America", since apparently the idea is that each state can do whatever the heck it wants, even if that goes against previous SC rulings.




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Spock
Date: May 12, 2022 02:33PM
Don't forget to point out that the Republicans and Manchin have now voted for an increase in crime.

Say what?

Freakonomics Steven LEVITT and John DONOHUE a professor of law at Stanford Law School, in their 2001 paper “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime” wrote that “Legalized abortion, appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime.”

Ban abortions and in 15 years or so "the unwanted" will be committing crimes. Thank you GOP.

On the other hand the Prison–industrial complex will be delighted.



Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: AllGold
Date: May 12, 2022 03:01PM
I can't find a link but last night Joyce Vance fact checked Joe Manchin's whining.

Manchin said he would have voted for codification of Roe but this goes way too far; it overrides something like 500 state laws.

Vance responded that that might be true in some hyper-technical sense, but what the act really does is eliminate the significant barriers being put in place to the access of what Roe grants, like waiting periods and multiple appointments. In effect, it's not an expansion, it only eliminates much of the B.S. that states are enacting in order to give women the rights they were already supposed to have.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Acer
Date: May 12, 2022 03:04PM
Um, isn't the POINT of the legislation to over-ride an unworkable conglomeration of conflicting state laws?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: PeterB
Date: May 12, 2022 04:29PM
Quote
Acer
Um, isn't the POINT of the legislation to over-ride an unworkable conglomeration of conflicting state laws?

Not if the states all each want to do their own thing, e.g., "we don't want no stinkin' guvmint tellin' us what ta do!"

... and yet, apparently they have no problem with McConnell maybe passing a federal ban on abortions.

Quote
AllGold
In effect, it's not an expansion, it only eliminates much of the B.S. that states are enacting in order to give women the rights they were already supposed to have.

... but that's the whole point. They WANT the B.S. in place, because they want to be able to harass women seeking abortions.

... the other thing that really burns me up about all of this is, it's all based on (mostly) Evangelical Christian theology, which isn't -- by far -- what everyone believes. Striking down Roe would seem to violate everyone's First Amendment's right to freedom of religion... if a doctor or abortion provider is legitimate to refuse to provide an abortion based on their religious beliefs (as many/most of the Republicans believe, and Susan Collins has made a point of), they should also be able to refuse to NOT provide an abortion based on their religious beliefs. Likewise, if a religion explicitly permits/condones abortion, then by a woman's not being provided one, her First Amendment rights are being violated.




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Ombligo
Date: May 12, 2022 05:48PM
As Peter points out, there are first amendment issues that will be raised and this will likely go before SCOTUS again.

Some states are passing laws based upon life beginning at conception - that is not believed by several faiths - Judaism and Buddism being two. Then the Satanic Church claims abortion is a sacrament and outlawing it goes against their faith. That approach will rely upon previous rulings that allowed the use of Cannabis and @#$%& for religious reasons while it was still generally outlawed.



“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

The German word for contraceptive is “Schwangerschaftsverhütungsmittel”. By the time you finished saying that, it’s too late
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Diana
Date: May 13, 2022 12:43AM
Well, I fired off emails to both my Senators (both Repubs); Inhofe hasn't responded--he's up for reelection in 2026, so I don't really expect him to. However, Junior Senator Lankford, who also participated in the attempted coup 1/6, is up for reelection in June. I received a canned form letter in response from him.

All the points everyone is bringing up were iterated in that missive. This doesn't surprise me.

Don't get me wrong: I am neither pro abortion, nor anti. All I can say is what I think as it applies to me. I am not my sister's keeper. It isn't my business. It's hers. She needs support and love at a difficult and, in some cases, a soul-destroying period of time in her life. There is no "win" here. My opinion to her is worth less than a fart in the wind. But I WILL fight for the right for my sister to make that choice.

Basically, the bill says that it isn't your business what the woman does, it isn't anyone's business; this is a protected medical procedure between the patient and the doctor, so buzz off. If the question was about a man getting a vasectomy, it would be no big deal. Wait, it IS NO BIG DEAL. The hypocrisy is stunning.

The bill: The bill
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Speedy
Date: May 13, 2022 01:29AM
Diana, thanks.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Janit
Date: May 13, 2022 07:22AM
Quote
Diana
Well, I fired off emails to both my Senators (both Repubs); Inhofe hasn't responded--he's up for reelection in 2026, so I don't really expect him to. However, Junior Senator Lankford, who also participated in the attempted coup 1/6, is up for reelection in June. I received a canned form letter in response from him.

All the points everyone is bringing up were iterated in that missive. This doesn't surprise me.

Don't get me wrong: I am neither pro abortion, nor anti. All I can say is what I think as it applies to me. I am not my sister's keeper. It isn't my business. It's hers. She needs support and love at a difficult and, in some cases, a soul-destroying period of time in her life. There is no "win" here. My opinion to her is worth less than a fart in the wind. But I WILL fight for the right for my sister to make that choice.

Here ya go if you really want to. Don't know why, along with a few comments of my own
Dear Dr. Diana XXXXXXXXX,


Thank you for contacting me about S. 1975 or the Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA).

I believe the WHPA would be more appropriately named the "Abortion on Demand Until Birth Act". While proponents claim the bill codifies Roe v. Wade, this legislation goes much further. It would undue all existing limits on abortion and prevent future state and federal attempts to set limits on abortion. In fact, the stated purpose of the bill is to "permit health care providers to provide abortion services without limitations ... and to promote access to abortion services." Oh yeah, let's cherry pick the words: the ... part reads "or requirements that single out the provision of abortion services for restrictions that are more burdensome than those restrictions imposed on medically comparable procedures, do not significantly advance reproductive health or the safety of abortion services, and make abortion services more difficult to access" and the quote doesn't end in a period, but rather "and women’s ability to participate equally in the economic and social life of the United States;" When a bill's sole purpose is to limit the ability to protect unborn children and to encourage the taking of human life, I will oppose it at every turn.

No, it only codifies a woman's right to bodily autonomy, which includes the right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. You can't have it both ways: you cannot prohibit abortion and at the same time say that a woman's right to exist isn't affected. This attitude effectively places women at the same level as breeding stock. Additionally, it DOES NOT "undue" all limits on abortion, but only limits the harassment and pain that is heaped on those seeking relief.

The bill prohibits parental notification and consent laws, waiting periods, health and safety standards for abortion clinics, ultrasound requirements, limitations on do-it-yourself chemical abortion, and "any law that singles out abortion or affects access to abortion." Not only would this result in countless lives lost to the horrors of abortion, it would put both moms and babies at risk. The preemption of state law itself is a totally unacceptable example of federal overreach of Oklahoma's state rights.

In addition, the WHPA creates new precedent for the "viability standard", or when a baby is considered likely to survive outside of the mother's womb. We have seen children survive outside the womb as early as 21 weeks. Unsurprisingly, this bill ignores the science and allows the viability standard to be determined according to any individual abortionist. But it does follow the science. There is no date nor time stated, but rather vaguely written as "viability." This number of weeks changes as medical science and our understanding changes, and babies previously thought to be nonviable have survived, with proper medical care. Since the 'viability standard' moves, it only makes sense to keep it vague to allow it to be modified as needed, WITHOUT legislative oversight.

The bill also poses sweeping challenges to every Americans' right to live in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs. The WHPA explicitly carves out the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which will likely result in healthcare workers being forced to perform abortions and religious organizations being forced to pay for abortions through employer sponsored insurance without regard to conscience objections. It does not force anyone to do anything. If the doctor, or the hospital, or the healthcare worker objects, then so be it. What the bill does do, is say that the provider has a right to provide the service and that the provider MAY (not SHALL, not WILL, but MAY) do so. And the fear that it "will likely result in healthcare workers being forced" to provide a medical service, and the "religious organizations being forced to pay" for them is fear mongering. Have either of these occurred in the last 50 years, since Roe v Wade?

In short, the “Abortion on Demand Until Birth Act” is pro-abortion overreach determined to violate the consciences of Americans, undermine state rights, and mandate that every state allow for the taking of unborn life up until birth. All I can do is shake my head on this one. As you may know, last year, the House of Representatives passed the WHPA without Republican support. In February, I spoke on the Senate floor against this bill when it was put forward for debate. In a procedural vote of 46-48, the measure was defeated.

Senator Schumer brought the bill up again in response to a draft Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. You can watch my comments on the Senator floor about this latest version here. I will continue to oppose passage of this bill, which failed to pass again in a vote of 49-51.

Embryology shows that from the earliest stages of life, each person is a distinct and whole human being. There is no difference in value between the embryo every human is or once was and the person they are today or will become. The only difference between a child in the womb and a kindergartener on the playground is time.

[Wow, let's throw SCIENCE in here! There is so much more. Embryology, by the way, shows that the embryo growing into a fetus (and further into a form more recognizable as human) appears the same as any other mammal. In fact, I challenge you to pick out the human embryo from a set of pictures of other mammalian embryos (or reptilian, or avian). If the creature has four limbs, they look much alike. So no, the embryo is not a "whole human being." ]

In the U.S. we have laws to protect children outside the womb from abuse, harm, and death. Just because they are smaller people does not mean they should be any less protected by the law. I also believe as a society, we need to show compassion for abortion-determined women, not criminalize them. We need community, nonprofit, and faith leaders to rise up to help both men and women who face an unexpected or difficult pregnancy. We can stand with women and their children.

[You could stand with women and their children, but you won't. It will be the community, the nonprofit, the faith leaders, who advise and help, all with the knowledge that they could be the next ones sued or imprisoned, all for helping their neighbor. Just ask any Texan. And you state that the woman needs not be criminalized? Since when? Isn't "abortion is murder?"]

I hope this information is helpful to you. You can hear more about my perspective on when life begins and my ideas on how to protect life until natural death, on my podcast. Please feel free to contact me again via email at www.lankford.senate.gov for more information about my work in the United States Senate for all of us.

Your perspective on when life begins is flawed and based on Judeo-Christian teaching, not science. Other religions have other ideas as to when life begins. Expect that this will be brought back up on religious grounds, as you cannot have it both ways.


In God We Trust,


James Lankford
United States Senator

Basically, the bill says that it isn't your business what the woman does, it isn't anyone's business; this is a protected medical procedure between the patient and the doctor, so buzz off. If the question was about a man getting a vasectomy, it would be no big deal. Wait, it IS NO BIG DEAL. The hypocrisy is stunning.

The bill: The bill

Diana,

Thanks. I always find your posts to be informative and thought-provoking.

AND I have one piece of feedback regarding your commentary.

I would be more comfortable with a rephrasing that it is wrong to impose Evangelical Christian and/or Catholic dogma on everyone in a country that is supposed to be founded on the separation of church and state.

The phrase "Judeo-Christian" is a phrase invented by Christians, not by Jews. When I see it I always ask whether the intention is truly inclusive or more nefarious, as it is often used by Christians who are presuming things about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity that Jews find to be untrue. It's usage tends to imply a fixity of dogma.

The possibility that the term "Judeo-Christian" might be a dog whistle is not obvious to many -- after all, that is the nature of dog whistles.

The Jewish arguments around "when life begins" are different from the Christian arguments, and the life of the mother is paramount. Although there may be a range of opinions along the spectrum of Jewish practice, the subtext surrounding Jewish discussions is quite different from the subtext surrounding Christian ones.

I imagine many Christians are also uncomfortable about being lumped together with Evangelical and Catholic dogma under the term "Judeo-Christian."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Steve G.
Date: May 13, 2022 08:43AM
The "Judeo-Christian" phrase is a joke.

Only the Christers believe it. ( I first ran across that word watching 'Deadwood'. Apparently it was used => 1917, L. V. Hodgkin, A Book of Quaker Saints)

Christer Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
[www.merriam-webster.com] › dictionary › Christer
The meaning of CHRISTER is a Christian who is perceived as being overly pious or self-righteous or who proselytizes frequently.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2022 08:51AM by Steve G..
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Diana
Date: May 13, 2022 11:32AM
Thanks to both Janit and Steve G. I knew I could count on you.

The phrase "Judeo-Christian" was problematic for me. My enfeebled brain couldn't come up with a better term; I hated to use it but it was the closest that I could come to to express my feelings (it's an oxymoron at best and downright insulting if you really think about it). I like Janit's

"... it is wrong to impose Evangelical Christian and/or Catholic dogma on everyone in a country that is supposed to be founded on the separation of church and state."

This will be worked into the text prior to sending it back to the moron who sent it to me. I know that he: (a) won't read it; (b) will misconstrue what I say; and/or (c) twistedly use my arguments to further his agenda. And make no mistake, an agenda is present here.

Steve G.: Thanks, I love expanding my vocabulary. emoticon_love The term fits perfectly, even though few are familiar with it.

As for reworking:

Your perspective on when life begins is flawed and based on Judeo-Christian teaching Evangelical Christian and/or Catholic dogma, not science. Other religions have other ideas as to when life begins, and take exception to your "perspective." So tell me, is your "perspective" based on actual Science and/or Medical Opinion, or is it what someone else told you, as in your church leader(s)? Expect that this will be brought back up on religious grounds, as you cannot have it both ways. I was taught that America was founded on the separation of church and state. What about you?

I thought about adding something along the lines of:

"I was taught by my father (both biological and the one above AND his son) that it is wrong to impose myself on others (something about giving to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's?); to love one another as you would yourself (hold your own self to the same level as you hold others); judgement is the Lord's alone; and the nature of love, forgiveness and even compassion as stated in all the teachings I have seen (and I have read quite a few and I'm always interested in reading more) either state or implicitly imply that you DON'T proselytize but accept your fellow man (woman?) with all of their flaws for who they are, not who you THINK they should be. It is God who made the variety in the world, and dismissing it or criticizing it is dismissing and criticizing God. That doesn't sound very Christian to me.

There are hard truths to be acknowledged in the American system of government; the biggest one is that the Church (in all it forms) is not welcome in Government. While the Church may have moral authority over its members and therefore it can (and rightly should) impose a way of life over its members, it should not, cannot, and will not have authority in Governmental and State matters. Render to God what is God's, and to Caesar what is Caesar's, remember? To do otherwise reduces us a theocracy, the exact same thing as the founders fled when they came to the new world."

But that sounds more like, at best, a soapbox to me so I leave it out. Opinions?

It seems incredible that I would have to explain this to a supposedly grown MAN.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: $tevie
Date: May 13, 2022 12:41PM
Quote
Steve G.
Every single Republican plus Manchin.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Vote today in the Senate
Posted by: Speedy
Date: May 13, 2022 02:38PM
Diana, you might mention that women will die in service to your floor vote which is just a manipulative part of your re-election campaign even though you have those easily manipulated voters locked-in. By 2 : 1, Americans support Roe v. Wade.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 166
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020