politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: The bright spot for the GOP is the defeat of Ted Cruz
Source:
ChicagoNow
URL Source: http://www.chicagonow.com/politics- ... gop-is-the-defeat-of-ted-cruz/
Published: May 10, 2016
Author: Bob Schneider
Post Date: 2016-05-10 14:55:30 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 6196
Comments: 38
Many on the left are running around social media proclaiming that if Donald Trump is not at least the reincarnation of Hitler, he must be possessed by his spirit. Trump bears no resemblance to Hitler but a lot of his followers sure are fond of the Fuhrer. Trump is not an ideologue. In fact, he is more buffoon than anything. He has more in common with a stand-up comic than he does with a dictator. He has no belief system, other than making money and self-promotion. He wings it most of the time, just blurting out whatever comes into his head at the moment with no plan, no script just a sort of word hemorrhage that could use a tourniquet. He is so absent a belief system that he actually runs to the left of Hillary Clinton and neck-and-neck from an ideological point of view with hapless Bernie Sanders on some issues. On Trade, he has about as much grasp of trade issues as Bernie, which is not much at all. One would think since he is a businessman, he would understand the economy. Yesterday, he said the USA would never default on debt because we print the money. Technically true, but ever heard of something called “Inflation,” Donald? You would need a wheelbarrow of 100 dollar bills to buy your latte if that ever happened. On the other hand, we have Ted Cruz. Ted is the polar opposite of Donald Trump. He’s a true believer, doctrinaire, an ideologue with total intolerance and disdain for anything, or anyone who is against his interpretation of conservatism. He is disciplined and works from a script and is analytical. Ted Cruz entire political career has embraced radical right extremist positions. He has not accomplished much from a legislative standpoint because he frankly does not believe in Government’s ability to do anything. Take a look at his time in the Senate; what has he done other than to take the nation to the fiscal brink for no purpose other than to gain attention? His interpretations of the Constitution I find alarming especially in light of the fact he is a lawyer. His views on the Second Amendment are some of the most radical views around. He thinks the Second Amendment guarantees everyone can own a gun, regardless if they are a convicted felon, terrorist, or mentally ill. Thankfully, his views are minority views even among gun owners. His closest supporters don’t believe in separation of church and state. Senator Cruz has done nothing to denounce that view and many of his surrogates have openly proclaimed in interviews the separation of church and state is a myth. The Taliban agrees with that position. What happened in Indiana was significant. Indiana has a very conservative GOP. This is the state where the Tea Party was strong enough to defeat long-time Senator Richard Lugar and elect Richard Mourdock who made a rape remark in the context of a discussion about abortion, and handed a safe US Senate seat to the Democrats. A party so conservative they would elect the likes of Mourdock said to Cruz, and to the GOP, “we’re not doing this. This is too extreme.” It appears to me the GOP has no desire to win back the White House. Governor John Kasich of Ohio beats Hillary Clinton easily in every poll, head-to-head yet his campaign never picked up traction. Ted was not the darling of “establishment” GOP as some say, rather the darling of the extreme element. It appears the GOP is looking for a time-out to try and find its way. Where will it find its way? That is a good question, and it appears there are no charismatic leaders with a vision right now. Clearly it isn’t Trump, who is all over the place in his positions. The party is in a bad way for leadership. It’s lost on most issues. When I cast my first vote in 1972, the GOP offered conservative answers to problems in society. It offered an alternative vision to the vision of the Democratic Party. In today’s GOP, there is no vision, no problems are addressed. Part of the problem has been we let libertarians in positions of power. Libertarian thought never could get traction on its own. Why embrace something that failed? Where does the party go from here? It needs to clean house and stop camping out on the wings. The Democrats have their own Pandora’s Box open with the Bernie gang. They are a few years behind the GOP but that same form of cancer is loose on them that got loose within the GOP in 1992 when the religious right flexed their muscle against President GHW Bush. The defeat of Cruz was a step in the right direction. It is time for the party to start taking a critical look at itself, and cease with a platform of “No” and start looking at how it can come up with conservative solutions to problems. Otherwise, the Democrats will have a permanent lease on The White House.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Willie Green, tomder55, conserving freedom (#0)
Bob, you're blind. Trump has a set of policies. They're smart ones. He's been saying the same things for a long time. He is going to do them. They are popular: that's why he won. Just because people like you are too deaf too hear him doesn't mean that he isn't saying anything. Essentially, Bob, you've failed as an analyst. Your writing is a long screed about pink elephants. You'll be surprised when Trump wins in November. And even more surprised when he's re-elected because the country has done so well under him. You'll be focused on every remaining flaw, howling in the wilderness.
Ted Cruz entire political career has embraced radical right extremist positions. He has not accomplished much from a legislative standpoint because he frankly does not believe in Government’s ability to do anything. Take a look at his time in the Senate; what has he done other than to take the nation to the fiscal brink for no purpose other than to gain attention? His interpretations of the Constitution I find alarming especially in light of the fact he is a lawyer. His views on the Second Amendment are some of the most radical views around. He thinks the Second Amendment guarantees everyone can own a gun, regardless if they are a convicted felon, terrorist, or mentally ill. Thankfully, his views are minority views even among gun owners. In other words, Cruz is a real conservative. The author got one thing right: that does make him the polar opposite of Donald Trump. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Gee Bob, if you are going to make stuff up, why did you stop where you did? Why not go on to assert Cruz thinks the Second Amendment guarantees everyone can own a gun, regardless if they are a prison inmate? When you are just making stuff up, go for the gusto!
Jim Robinson I was told yesterday that Trump is a liberal Democrat. My reply: Build the wall. Enforce the law. Deport them all. End sanctuary cities. End anchor babies. Slap a moratorium on muslim immigration. Cut the taxes. Cut the spending. Cut the regulations. Cut the government. Cut the debt. Cut the EPA. Repeal ObamaCare. Get the feds out and allow health insurance to be sold over state lines. Send education back to states. Get a handle on trade. Make trade deals in our own best interests. Bring back capital. Bring back manufacturing. Bring back jobs. Strengthen the economy. Defend the second amendment. Defend religious freedom. Appoint constitutional conservative judges. Rebuild our military. Bomb the shit out of ISIS (and take their oil). End political correctness. Take the GOP head-on. Take the media head-on. Take the liberals head-on. And win, baby, win. All of the above on a shoestring budget compared to most of the 16 competitors he’s defeated (after they spent 100's of millions of donor bucks). No PACs. No big donors. No party support. What’s democrat about any of the above? What’s not conservative? What’s not to like? And I’ll add a few more: Redo the horrid Iran deal. Take a serious look at NATO. Require our allies to pay more for their defense. Rebuild the Reagan Coalition and attract blue collar workers by making America first again on manufacturing, trade, secure borders, economy and jobs, jobs, jobs! Make America Great Again! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3421722/posts Damn Jim !!! Looks like you nailed it. This is exactly what I think. Add restore a free press 15 posted on 04/16/2016 6:29:19 PM PDT by stockpirate To: stockpirate “Add restore a free press!” And to do that, make the press just like the rest of us in terms of being liable for lying. Sue a few of them, and watch how much “more accurate” reporting becomes! PM PDT by vette6387 (Obama can go to hell!) If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
The government was nowhere close to the 'fiscal brink' except for endless government spending will eventually land us on the brink . The fact is that if Congress refuses to use the power of the purse ,it is a powerless institution. Check out how often there was a government shutdown in the past . The irony is that the government probably saved money in those days. Oh, miserable mortals! Oh wretched earth! Oh, dreadful assembly of all mankind! Eternal sermon of useless sufferings! Deluded philosophers who cry, “All is well,” Hasten, contemplate these frightful ruins, (Voltaire)
He won because Roger Stone knows how the system is rigged: "Stone , who going back to his class elections in high school has been a proponent of recruiting patsy candidates to split the other guy’s support..."
The bright spot was when those the MSM thought should be nominated got eliminated early and often.
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Well, it DOES say "shall not be infringed", and there's no asterisk there that says *unless you're a convicted felon.
That means Cruz doesn't want a wall. Cruz favors trade deals that sell out American workers. Cruz doesn't want to make America great. Cruz doesn't support second amendment. Cruz wants Muslim refugees to come here. Cruz wants more Chinese imports. No wonder lying Ted lost.
Cruz was good on that one. Trump will cut spending.
You really believe that clever individuals through private manipulations run the world. I don't.
Hows that ol' geezer doing?
Hows that ol' geezer doing? looks like because revolt getting smart love ps the whippings If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Yes, the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms that the colonists brought with them into the union cannot be infringed. There was no colonial right for a felon, a lunatic, a terrorist, or a prison mate to keep and bear arms. No such right was brought forth into the union by the colonials.
But, but, the amendment says "SHALL NOT be infringed"! And there's no asterisk there to say otherwise. So of course felons and lunatics and terrorists can keep and bear arms. It says so right there in the Scripture! ....er....the Constitution!
OK, you got me - since Cruz and Trump agreed on issues such as border security and the Second Amendment, they can't be "polar opposites." The point remains that the author's real beef with Cruz is that he's a a real conservative, with positions more "extreme" - that is, more conservative - than Trump's.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. But the amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." What is it that shall not be infringed? One needs to determine what was intended by the term "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to determine what shall not be infringed. As stated in 1802 and quoted in Lynch v. Clarke in 1844, "The constitution is unintelligible without reference, to the common law." By the interpretation of some, one must find the Framers intended to protect, and did protect, a right that did not then exist and had never existed in the colonies, the several states or the United States. It was the colonial common law right to keep and bear arms that was carried forth into the union. Lynch v. Clarke, New York Legal Observer, Vol 3, 236, 245 (1844) Quotes from State Constitutions Paragraph 1. Be it enacted and declared by the Governor, and Council, and House of Representatives, in General Court assembled, That the ancient Form of Civil Government, contained in the Charter from Charles the Second, King of England, and adopted by the People of this State, shall be and remain the Civil Constitution of this State, under the sole authority of the People thereof, independent of any King or Prince whatever. - - - - - Delaware 1776 Art. 25. The common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force, unless they shall be altered by a future law of the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this constitution, and the declaration of rights, &c., agreed to by this convention. - - - - - Maryland, 1776 III. That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by jury, according to the course of that law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their first emigration, and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and of such others as have been since made in England, or Great Britain, and have been introduced, used and practised by the courts of law or equity; and also to acts of Assembly, in force on the first of June seventeen hundred and seventy-four, except such as may have since expired, or have been or may be altered by acts of Convention, or this Declaration of Rights—subject, nevertheless, to the revision of, and amendment or repeal by, the Legislature of this State: and the inhabitants of Maryland are also entitled to all property, derived to them, from or under the Charter, granted by his Majesty Charles I. to Cæcilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore. - - - - - New Jersey, 1776 XXI. That all the laws of this Province, contained in the edition lately published by Mr. Allinson, shall be and remain in full force, until altered by the Legislature of this Colony (such only excepted, as are incompatible with this Charter) and shall be, according as heretofore, regarded in all respects, by all civil officers, and others, the good people of this Province. XXII. That the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practised in this Colony, shall still remain in force, until they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature; such parts only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Charter; and that the inestimable right of trial by jury shall remain confirmed as a part of the law of this Colony, without repeal, forever. - - - - - New York, 1777 XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the state law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. That such of the said acts, as are temporary, shall expire at the times limited for their duration respectively. That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the supremacy, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or exercised by, the King of Great Britain and his predecessors, over the colony of New York and its inhabitants, or are repugnant to this constitution, be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected. And this convention doth further ordain, that the resolves or resolutions of the congresses of the colony of New York, and of the convention of the State of New York, now in force, and not repugnant to the government established by this constitution, shall be considered as making part of the laws of this State; subject, nevertheless, to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State may, from time to time, make concerning the same. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals (1765)
Blasphemer! That's a Catholic way of looking at it, adding in all that tradition. This is a Protestant country! Sola Scriptura! It says "...shall not be infringed"! Which means that convicts can have arms. It means Tsarnaev has the right to a nuke! Oh, wait. No. He's a MUSLIM. The Founders were all Christians. "the People" means "natural born Protestant Christians". "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Which is to say: "A fully armed white Protestant male populace, being necessary to preserve the sovereignty of the state to do whatever said white Protestant males want to do within their territory, the right of all of the white Protestant males to have any sort of weapon they can imagine is absolute and ordained by God, and nobody can pass any laws to change any of that until the Rapture."
Don't know. Don't care. They're men doing a job.
"Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read "” departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson http://www.google.com/search? q=Jeferson+indidels+of+every+denomination What does "infidel of every denomination" mean?
Unprincipled prostitutes. And stupid is as stupid does.
Within the context, it means one who is nominally a member of some religious denomination, but who is either not faithful to the tenets of that denomination, or doesn't believe them at all. In Jefferson's time, virtually nobody proclaimed himself an atheist, certain their was no God. Most people with severe doubts identified with the denomination of their birth or choice, but then simply ignored it. That would be an "infidel of a specific denomination".
You call me stupid. I'm highly intelligent. When people call me stupid, it reveals their lack of discernment. Why go there? Do you think any of the 5 people reading this site is going to take your word for it that because you say somebody is "stupid" that that person is therefore stupid? Do you think that calling a man stupid to his face is going to persuade him of anything? (If you do, that's very stupid of you, because men do not work that way.) What is it that you are aiming for on this site? Is it to demonstrate the superiority of your ideas? If your ideas were strong, you would not feel the need to resort to personal insult.
It means FAIL, again, in the context of Your Worshipfulness. "the People" includes infidels of EVERY denomination: "Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read "” departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination." http://www.google.com/search? q=Jeferson+indidels+of+every+denomination
It's chum for trolls.
Rom 1:22 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools NIV How's that work out per the rest of Romans chapter 1?
It's a fundamental AMERICAN principle. Wisely constituted by America's founders to prevent lying Jesuit Commies like you from doing bidness ala the state-establishment.
“And Ye Shall Know the Truth, and the Truth Shall Make You Free”
Splendidly, thank you.
Well, keep talking with me and maybe some of it will rub off on you.
"FAIL in the context of Your Worshipfulness", is a fundamental American principle? Fundamental American principles are not generally so muddy.
CDC Statistics documenting the various Due Penalties indicate otherwise.
Go to YouTube and listen to "Ted Cruz, Sex, Lies and Creepy." Thank the Lord he did not win the nomination.
God maintains a delicate balance between keeping his existence sufficiently evident so people will know he's there and yet hiding his presence enough so that people who want to choose to ignore him can do it. This way, their choice of destiny is really free. - J.P. Morelad
Center for Disease Control? "Due Penalties"? You are byeltsin's slightly more lucid alter ego. I have absolutely no idea what you mean. I'm sure you mean to be unpleasant and to be leveling some sort of accusation. But I'm not Typhoid Mary, such that the CDC would be interested. And even if I were infected with some terrible disease, there are not penalties for that from law enforcement. You say weird and incomprehensible things. I'm glad the Internet is anonymous, because I can see you working yourself into a frenzy over some sort of fantasy and going on a one-way walk.
You say weird and incomprehensible things.
Ah. Ok, that makes sense.
#2. To: Willie Green (#0)
#3. To: Willie Green (#0)
On the other hand, we have Ted Cruz. Ted is the polar opposite of Donald Trump. He’s a true believer, doctrinaire, an ideologue with total intolerance and disdain for anything, or anyone who is against his interpretation of conservatism. He is disciplined and works from a script and is analytical.
#4. To: Willie Green (#0)
His [Cruz'] interpretations of the Constitution I find alarming especially in light of the fact he is a lawyer. His views on the Second Amendment are some of the most radical views around. He thinks the Second Amendment guarantees everyone can own a gun, regardless if they are a convicted felon, terrorist, or mentally ill. Thankfully, his views are minority views even among gun owners.
#5. To: Willie Green (#0)
bob snozzle
#6. To: Willie Green (#0)
Take a look at his time in the Senate; what has he done other than to take the nation to the fiscal brink for no purpose other than to gain attention?
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
They are popular: that's why he won.
“I’m still kind of a neophyte,” Stone admits, “still
kind of thinking everything’s on the level. ’Cause the truth
is, nothing’s on the level.” At a 1979 meeting at Cohn’s Manhattan
townhouse, he was introduced to major mobster and
Cohn client Fat Tony Salerno. “Roy says to Tony, ‘You know,
Tony, everything’s fi xed. Everything can be handled.’ Tony
says, ‘Roy, the Supreme Court?’ Roy says, ‘Cost a few more
dollars.’ ”
http://stonezone.com/docs /WS_RS_article.pdf
#8. To: Willie Green (#0)
#9. To: nolu chan (#4)
Why not go on to assert Cruz thinks the Second Amendment guarantees everyone can own a gun, regardless if they are a prison inmate?
#10. To: ConservingFreedom (#3)
In other words, Cruz is a real conservative. The author got one thing right: that does make him the polar opposite of Donald Trump.
#11. To: tomder55 (#6)
The government was nowhere close to the 'fiscal brink' except for endless government spending will eventually land us on the brink . The fact is that if Congress refuses to use the power of the purse ,it is a powerless institution. Check out how often there was a government shutdown in the past . The irony is that the government probably saved money in those days.
#12. To: VxH (#7)
#13. To: BorisY (#5)
Jim Robinson
#14. To: buckeroo (#13)
like
a
lot
people
of
the
trump
revolution
better
boris
Clintons
will
be
getting
their
just
desserts
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
Well, it DOES say "shall not be infringed",
#16. To: nolu chan (#15)
#17. To: A K A Stone (#10)
#18. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
But, but, the amendment says "SHALL NOT be infringed"!
In 1795, Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, in delivering his charge to the grand jury, in the Virginia Circuit, went into an elaborate dissertation on the jurisdiction of the federal courts over crimes, and after enumerating such as he deemed cognizable by the circuit court, he continued as follows: "In the foregoing catalogue, murder, man slaughter, robbery, piracy, forgery, perjury, bribery and extortion, are mentioned as crimes and offences; but they are neither defined nor described. For this reason we must refer to some pre-existing law for their definition or description. To what pre-existing law should this reference be made? This is a question of immence importance and extent. It must receive an answer, but I cannot, in this address, assign my reasons for the answer which I am about to give. The reference should be made to the common law. To the common law then let us resort for the definition or description of the crimes and offences which in the laws of the United States have been named, but have not been described or defined. You will in this manner, gentlemen, be furnished with a legal standard, by the judicious application of which you may ascertain with precision the true nature and qualities of such facts and transactions as shall become the objects of your consideration and research." (3 Wilson's Works, 357, 371.) And in the debates on the judiciary in 1802, to which I have before alluded, Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, in an able speech in the House of Representatives, said on this subject, (what was not disputed, so far as facts were concerned,) that "the judges of the United States have held generally that the Constitution of the United States was predicated upon an existing common law. Of the soundness of that opinion I never had a doubt. I should scarcely go too far were I to say, that stript of the common law, there would be neither constitution nor government. The constitution is unintelligible without reference, to the common law. And were we to go into our courts of justice with the mere statutes of the United States, not a step could be taken, not even a contempt could be punished. There would be no form of pleading, no principles of evidence, no rule of property. Without this law the constitution becomes a dead letter. For ten years it has been the doctrine of our courts that the common law was in force." (Debates on the Judiciary, 1802, p. 372. And see 1 Story's Comm. on the Const., 140, 141,; § 157, 158, and note 2; 2 ibid, 262 to 267 ; § 794 to 797 ; Rawle on the Const. 258.)
Connecticut - 1776
5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
#19. To: nolu chan (#18)
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
(Edited)
You really believe that clever individuals through private manipulations run the world. I don't.
How many political campaigns have Cohn, Stone, and Manifort infested... in the U.S.A. and elsewhere?
"Everything can be handled.’ Tony says, ‘Roy, the Supreme Court?’ Roy says, ‘Cost a few more dollars.’ ”
#21. To: VxH (#20)
How many political campaigns have Cohn, Stone, and Manifort infested... in the U.S.A. and elsewhere?
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
The Founders were all Christians. "the People" means "natural born Protestant Christians"
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#21)
(Edited)
They're men doing a job.
Don't know. Don't care.
#24. To: VxH (#22)
What does "infidel of every denomination" mean?
#25. To: VxH (#23)
And stupid is as stupid does.
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
"the People" means "natural born Protestant Christians"
--Thomas Jefferson
#27. To: VxH (#26)
It means FAIL, again, in the context of Your Worshipfulness.
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
(Edited)
I'm highly intelligent.
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
(Edited)
It's chum for trolls.
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
What is it that you are aiming for on this site?
#31. To: VxH (#28)
How's that work out per the rest of Romans chapter 1?
#32. To: VxH (#30)
“And Ye Shall Know the Truth, and the Truth Shall Make You Free”
#33. To: VxH (#29)
It's a fundamental AMERICAN principle.
#34. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
Splendidly, thank you.
#35. To: ALL (#32)
#36. To: VxH (#34)
#37. To: Vicomte13 (#36)
>>>>Center for Disease Control? "Due Penalties"?
Rom 1:27 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. NIV
That's "incomprehensible" to you?
#38. To: VxH (#37)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]