Hillary For President?

[IzzyPop]

No, thats not what im saying. However, Hilary obviously has no true morals (pro-abortion) and has no value for marriage and family. Everywhere she goes she is wearing mens clothing. The message she portrays is very unholy to women of this world.

She is even so anti-family that she stayed with her husband after he had an affair. Now that shows how little she cares about the family unit.

"A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. - Deuteronomy 22:5

Really? Do you trim your hair? Do you where poly-blended clothing? Do you make your wife sit in a special chair when she is menstruating? Don't pull that Deuteronomy stuff here unless you are abiding by all of those insane, archaic laws yourself.

And, as I said above. Most people do not understand what the Apostle Paul is trying to say about marriage and wives, because their minds are already corrupted by 21st century secular culture. Only when that veil is removed can a person understand the holiness of husband and wife and both of their roles in life and family. Both the husband and wife are property of each other when they get married. Because they become one..The Husband looks up to Christ the way the wife looks up to her husband,. because man is made in the image of God. And we are all male/female in Christ. If a wife does not respect her husband she disrespects God, because Jesus Christ came in the form of a man.

Really? Do you really want to turn back the moral clock? Do you really want to go back to the time when spousal abuse was more prevalent? Do you want to go back to the time when we had separate drinking fountains? Or do you get to cherry pick your history like you do your bible verses?

 

[Renton405]

She is even so anti-family that she stayed with her husband after he had an affair. Now that shows how little she cares about the family unit.

It dosen't matter. What she portrays is harmful to people in this world. She portrays a very anti-family message. Shes a fraud(didn't report her donations to taxes) and not mention all that with whitewater, etc.

Secondly, Jesus didn't do away with the moral laws in the OT..

Really? Do you really want to turn back the moral clock? Do you really want to go back to the time when spousal abuse was more prevalent? Do you want to go back to the time when we had separate drinking fountains? Or do you get to cherry pick your history like you do your bible verses?

actually marriages lasted alot longer and were better in the early 1900 and 1800s than now. Divorce rate is the highest that it has ever been, thanx to feminism and the extreme left-wingists.

 

[flicka]

I don't think Hillary would make a bad President. The one thing I don't like about it is the idea of another political family (Bush, Kennedy). For some reason that bothers me even though it's not unusual for family members to go into the same business, in this case politics. It's just a personal issue I have.

I'm not even going to address the attention seekers in this thread.

 

[cantata]

actually marriages lasted alot longer and were better in the early 1900 and 1800s than now.

Yes, mainly because women had no recourse to the law if they were beaten or raped by their husbands, and had no way of ending a marriage if they were unhappy...

 

[IzzyPop]

Yes, mainly because women had no recourse to the law if they were beaten or raped by their husbands, and had no way of ending a marriage if they were unhappy...

But at least they gave a good and Godly example of what a commitment marriage was, right?

 

[LittleNipper]

Yes, mainly because women had no recourse to the law if they were beaten or raped by their husbands, and had no way of ending a marriage if they were unhappy...

She certainly could shoot such a fiend. In 1900 the lady would most likely not spend any time in prison if such allocations were known. Today, the woman is thrown in jail, because she has "options." I believe that is what is known as taking two steps forward and three steps backwards.....

 

[IzzyPop]

It dosen't matter. What she portrays is harmful to people in this world. She portrays a very anti-family message. Shes a fraud(didn't report her donations to taxes) and not mention all that with whitewater, etc.

How does Whitewater have anything to do with family? How is she portraying an anti-family message when she decided to stick with her husband after a pretty big transgression?

Secondly, Jesus didn't do away with the moral laws in the OT..

And how is a woman wearing a pantsuit a moral issue? What defines a moral law as opposed to any other law as written in the Bible?

actually marriages lasted alot longer and were better in the early 1900 and 1800s than now. Divorce rate is the highest that it has ever been, thanx to feminism and the extreme left-wingists.

Define better as used in that sentence. And provide proof that they were better back then.

 

[Calliso]

actually marriages lasted alot longer and were better in the early 1900 and 1800s than now. Divorce rate is the highest that it has ever been, thanx to feminism and the extreme left-wingists.

A big reason why marriages lasted longer I think is because the women in the marriages would likely have no where to go. Not to mention the huge stigma attached. Remember in those times it was legal for a husband to beat his wife as long as he didn;t cause too much damage. Women could get very little jobs and if she left would have a very hard time supporting herself. And with the huge stigma attached it was likely that even thei r own family would have have been very reluctant to help them out.
But we are talking about a different time and just because people pretended like nothing was wrong in their marriages didn;t mean there wasn;t some skeletons in their closets if you know what I mean. Sorry it just bothers me when people talk about the good old days like they were really that great when in reality they really weren;t.

 

[Calliso]

She certainly could shoot such a fiend. In 1900 the lady would most likely not spend any time in prison if such allocations were known. Today, the woman is thrown in jail, because she has "options." I believe that is what is known as taking two steps forward and three steps backwards.....

Well it is no longer legal or acceptable for a husband to beat his wife either now I say that is a huge step forward. Though I think by 1900 it wasn;t so acceptable anymore.

 

[DaisyDay]

She certainly could shoot such a fiend. In 1900 the lady would most likely not spend any time in prison if such allocations were known. Today, the woman is thrown in jail, because she has "options." I believe that is what is known as taking two steps forward and three steps backwards.....

Are you kidding? She would have been executed. It was not illegal or even socially unacceptable for a man to beat or rape his wife.

 

[Renton405]

Yes, mainly because women had no recourse to the law if they were beaten or raped by their husbands, and had no way of ending a marriage if they were unhappy...

And im sure you have statistics to back this up correct?

Talk to nearly any old couple that have been married for 40 years and you will see. There is a mutual respect between them that does not exist in marriages today..So many old couples today complain how messed up marriages are today and how it never was like that back then. And if anything there is probably much more rape and battery now than there was back then considering the crime rates are much higher than they used to be.

 

[Calliso]

And im sure you have statistics to back this up correct?

Talk to nearly any old couple that have been married for 40 years and you will see. There is a mutual respect between them that does not exist in marriages today..So many old couples today complain how messed up marriages are today and how it never was like that back then. And if anything there is probably much more rape and battery now than there was back then considering the crime rates are much higher than they used to be.

You were refering to the 18th and 19th centuries though. That is a HUGE difference from lets say 50-60 years ago. But even then alot of problems were swept under the rug I bet. Just because some people didn;t see problems didn;t mean there was some. I bet you could find plenty of people who would tell you that yeah there was plenty of problems! But really huge difference between talking about 18th and 19th century marriages and mid 20th century marriages.

 

[ReverendDG]

It dosen't matter. What she portrays is harmful to people in this world. She portrays a very anti-family message. Shes a fraud(didn't report her donations to taxes) and not mention all that with whitewater, etc.

Secondly, Jesus didn't do away with the moral laws in the OT.

go renton shift those goalposts!
seriously, her sticking with bill after he does something that most women would leave their husbands for is anti-family?
i can't believe that staying with a known adulterer is anti-family
what does being a "fraud" have to do with being anti-family. or white water
sounds to me like you are using any excuse to dislike her

actually marriages lasted alot longer and were better in the early 1900 and 1800s than now. Divorce rate is the highest that it has ever been, thanx to feminism and the extreme left-wingists.

proof or GTFO
of course marriages lasted longer, the woman had no rights unmarried, she needed to be married to survive, unlike today

the rates are higher because women don't need to be married to survive
feminism was a good thing, you just don't like it, i guess you don't care about giving half of humanity rights they deserve then

 

[ReverendDG]

And im sure you have statistics to back this up correct?

logic?

Talk to nearly any old couple that have been married for 40 years and you will see. There is a mutual respect between them that does not exist in marriages today..So many old couples today complain how messed up marriages are today and how it never was like that back then. And if anything there is probably much more rape and battery now than there was back then considering the crime rates are much higher than they used to be.

thats because the women were taught differently, its not like it was all sunshine and butterflies for them
people still got divorced in your dreamy golden age of before women's rights
i don't know what you mean by "mutual respect" but our society is way more fast paced, and very different from 60 years ago
if your gauge is 60 years ago then of course now would look worse

if there is more rape and battery, its because of tv and news, not because the rate just jumped. like i said if theres really more in comparison to 60 years ago, its because of the stress and the way our society works now.

 

[m9lc]

And im sure you have statistics to back this up correct?

Talk to nearly any old couple that have been married for 40 years and you will see. There is a mutual respect between them that does not exist in marriages today..So many old couples today complain how messed up marriages are today and how it never was like that back then.

Newsflash, old people have complained about the modern times throughout history.

And if anything there is probably much more rape and battery now than there was back then considering the crime rates are much higher than they used to be.

That's a myth. Violent crime rates are actually much lower now. Reported crime rates are what have gone up.

 

[cantata]

And im sure you have statistics to back this up correct?

What possible statistics could show that women had no recourse to the law? Statistics would be entirely the wrong sort of evidence.

However, an example: there was no such thing as marital rape in the UK until the late 20th century. In fact the existence of such a crime was only officially admitted in 1991.

Talk to nearly any old couple that have been married for 40 years and you will see. There is a mutual respect between them that does not exist in marriages today..So many old couples today complain how messed up marriages are today and how it never was like that back then.

And I'm sure the generation before said exactly the same things.

And if anything there is probably much more rape and battery now than there was back then considering the crime rates are much higher than they used to be.

Wrong. The rate of rape and battery being reported by spouses has increased - not the incidence of those crimes.

 

[RangerJoe]

Hillary wears too many pant suits. That aside, is it fit and proper for a woman who hangs with a known adulterer to even be considered for president?

Bill spent more time philandering than he did governing the nation IMO. So elect Hillary and bring Bubba back and his fornication to the spotlight. Also Hillary has her problems with Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, and speaking out of all sides of her mouth. The pant suits are enough to warrant expulsion from the Senate for bad wardrobe taste.

Yeah, I think Obama is a better choice too. I'm really surprised the Neo-Cons aren't rallying behind the Hillster. She's more of a republican that McCain or Huckabee ever will be....

I still laugh at the folks who say God has chosen Huckabee to be the leader of this nation and will be mighty grumpy when that doesn't happen.

 

[CCGirl]

But Huckabee is such an idi0t.