E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
Many of its so called 'values' have been very damaging like the evil slave trade.
Once again, this isn't about making you or me agree with him. It's about getting enough people to vote for him to win. If he can portray Biden as an enemy of what the people in the middle of the electorate value, and the last two speeches have done that quite well, then he has a chance of winning.
One would have to be gullible in the extreme to believe anything that comes out of that ghastly man's mouth, but sadly that seems to be the case where many across the pond are concerned.
So you would have be gullible in the extreme to believe that it's a bad thing to destroy statues of George Washington as part of a mob?
Mob rule is not a good thing and I don't approve of it, but Trump is even worse.
What is the betting that, if Trump gets his second term, he tries to do a Putin and get himself, at the very least, a third?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53353953Trump has been ordered by the US Supreme Court to had over the details of his tax affairs to the NY prosecutors, something he has previously refused to do. If he had nothing to hide he would have already done so.
Both Trump's appointees Gorsuch and Kavanaugh voted for him having to reveal tax details.
It appears that some appointees are finally growing a set!
It's complicated on the same day as this, they also went 7-2 on thishttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/opinion/letters/supreme-court-contraception.htmlAnd yet on the same day this - 5/4 with Gorsuch being the swing vote.https://www.wsj.com/articles/american-indian-lands-include-eastern-oklahoma-supreme-court-rules-11594304003The issues with the Supremes is not whether they show testicular bravado but that they are political appointees. It's worth bearing in mind that the Notorious RBG (Justice Ginsberg) was a close supportive friend of Justice Scalia, despite their legal disagreements.
Thank you for the above but I cannot read the articles as I don't have access and your comment above goes way over my head as the details od American politics and law go the same way.Pathetic I know, but that is me these days I am afraid - age and its host of negatives are no longer happy with creeping up on me - they are inexorably accelerating. And I was never that bright on politics when I worked full-on.
Not sure why you don't have access. Apologies that they aren't easily accessible - not sure what the issue you are having. The big thing is that Gorsuch seems a much less 'politically' on one side that might have been suspected. The Supremes aren't generally about lacking in belief, or willingness or courage to stand up for it, rather they have a particular view of the law, and that is why the different Presidents push them.
The New York Times and Wall Street Journal are both paywalled sites. They allow you a certain number of free articles each month or so and then ask you to pay. For Owlswing's benefit, the first article is about a ruling which allows employers to opt-out of providing health insurance that covers contraception if they are opposed to it on religious grounds. The second article is about a parcel of land in Oklahoma which they have ruled as belonging to the local native Americans.
This has been allowed or disallowed?
I reckon if he was in the middle of a business deal and saw a young child in danger, he would complete his deal first before getting help for the kid!
