Comments
-
(Quote)
And there is nothing to suggest that he is sorry for his opening statement, nor should he be. Did you read the WSJ piece? He said there are things he should not have said but doesn't say which things those were.
-
(Quote)
I don't think that he was talking about the opening statement about what he regrets. I think it was probably more of his interaction with Senator Klobuchar.
-
(Quote)
Big bang is not a proven theory.
-
(Quote)
Sign of belief and allegiance to Christ.
-
Are you saying Lordship Salvation is a form of legalism? I'm confused...
-
(Quote)
Hey Dave.
I think that we should always try to preserve life. I don't think that there is any indication that we should just let things take their course. Jesus healing people who were dying or in some cases already dead are g…
-
The translation I use primarily is the ESV. I like the essential literalness of the translation but it isn't as clunky as the NASB.
For devotional reading, I use the NIV and prefer the 1984 version.
Most of my memorization as done…
-
(Quote)
So which should rule, "Her Truth" or "The Truth"
Obviously, there are times when those can be equal partners. In this case, they are not.
-
(Quote)
Well, you should but I guess that is typical. Liberal double standard. You are above the law I guess.
-
(Quote)
Criticize ideas, not people.
-
(Quote)
Remember, Democrats/Liberals accuse of what they do themselves. Look at Cory Booker in the Kavanaugh case.
-
(Quote)
Except it wasn't. Not to mention, where is that a qualification in the Constitution? And if you really want to go that route, where is the outcry against Ginsberg?
-
(Quote)
Just curious as to the reason for the thread that's all. Nothing special about the request @C_M_ just a question. Sheesh.
-
(Quote)
I'm not inviting you to anything. I pointed out you just broke the thing you tout so highly against others. It was pretty glaring even. It is for all to see. You have been caught in a lie that you don't break the expectations.
…
-
(Quote)
No, what I am saying is you don't know that the White House and/or Senate decided she couldn't be interviewed by FBI. You do not know that and if you say you do with 100% certainty you are lying.
-
(Quote)
How do you figure that? And who says he has a drinking problem?
-
(Quote)
I'm curious to @Wolfgang was there a specific passage that promoted this thread?
-
(Quote)
Again, he has not shown bias from the bench. This means nothing. If it truly meant something, the Ginsberg should be thrown off the court. She is not impartial off the bench (or on it).
-
(Quote)
What took him so long? There was an active investigation. It was best to lay low. Does he mean it? I think we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. How can he not be trusted is the better question. There is nothing that has give…
-
(Quote)
I go with the evidence. No evidence, why should I believe it? Because she is a "survivor"? We don't even know that is actually true.
-
(Quote)
You don't know that.
-
(Quote)
Exactly
-
(Quote)
What dirty tricks? Democrats are the ones with dirty tricks in this case.
-
(Quote)
He has not shown a lack of temperament from the bench so you can get off that bandwagon.
-
(Quote)
Guess I should have said "be put away"
-
Here's the bottom line @Bill_Coley. You think he is guilty despite there being zero evidence. Nothing will change your mind of that, despite there being n…
-
(Quote)
Which was Ford's stipulation if you recall. That wasn't the GOP idea. They wanted a private interview with her with counsel in California.
-
(Quote)
Yes I read the article. It talks about confidential documents. Gives no hard evidence.
-
(Quote)
Clearly he lied about that? Based on what? What do you base these accusations on? The victim had already been interviewed under oath. They didn't need to talk to her again.
