1 out of 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament is held by a party with a straight leader with kids.

George Washington had no kids.

Not only that, he married a single mom and raised her kids and even helped their extended family.

But according to modern conservatives George Washington was a cuck SMFH.

he was pregnant with america son
 
R
George Washington had no kids.

Not only that, he married a single mom and raised her kids and even helped their extended family.

But according to modern conservatives George Washington was a cuck SMFH.
Really? A guy gets married and raises kids and this evens out the whole deal?
 
lol, but how many of the actual MPs are older white men? It's kind of sad, but whenever I see a minority or women in charge of a party I just see them as a smokescreen for the old boy's club.

Gross.

You're from Ontario though so this kind of warped thinking is to be expected.
 
Nihilists who have no stake in the future of their country

Anyone who has to reference a thousand year old text on how to run a city, state, or country, doesn't know how to run anything.
 
Faith has no business in politics. Show me a leader of true unflinching faith and I'll show you a leader that doesn't have ability to compromise to pass policy nor has the wellbeing of his constituents at heart.

All the founding fathers that became president

Their Christian values are what created the idea of natural rights and were used to create the constitution and framework of the country

Religious values created the greatest nation in the history of mankind
 
All the founding fathers that became president

Their Christian values are what created the idea of natural rights and were used to create the constitution and framework of the country

Religious values created the greatest nation in the history of mankind

The founding fathers were mostly deist, which isn't important and doesn't in itself matter because the constitution flat out makes it clear that the country wasn't built on a religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

-- The Freekin Consitution

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
—John Adams

The founding fathers saw from their experiences in Europe the effects of religious persecution. If the U.S. was created on anything religious, it was on the basis for religious freedom.
 
The founding fathers were mostly deist, which isn't important and doesn't in itself matter because the constitution flat out makes it clear that the country wasn't built on a religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

-- The Freekin Consitution

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
—John Adams

The founding fathers saw from their experiences in Europe the effects of religious persecution. If the U.S. was created on anything religious, it was on the basis for religious freedom.
Here's some more information.
http://www.heritage.org/political-p...how-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law
Although today Jefferson's Danbury letter is thought of as a principled statement on the prudential and constitutional relationship between church and state, it was in fact a political statement written to reassure pious Baptist constituents that Jefferson was indeed a friend of religion and to strike back at the Federalist-Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut for shamelessly vilifying him as an infidel and atheist in the recent campaign. James H. Hutson of the Library of Congress has concluded that the President "regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion."[4]

Jefferson's Understanding of the "Wall"

Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the "high and impregnable" wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own "wall of separation."

Jefferson's wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. The wall's primary function was to delineate the constitutional jurisdictions of the national and state governments, respectively, on religious concerns, such as setting aside days in the public calendar for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. Evidence for this jurisdictional or structural understanding of the wall can be found in both the texts and the context of the correspondence between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association.[5]

President Jefferson had been under Federalist attack for refusing to issue executive proclamations setting aside days for national fasting and thanksgiving, and he said he wanted to explain his policy on this delicate matter. He told Attorney General Levi Lincoln that his response to the Danbury Baptists "furnishes an occasion too, which I have long wished to find, of saying why I do not proclaim fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors [Presidents Washington and Adams] did." The President was eager to address this topic because his Federalist foes had demanded religious proclamations and then smeared him as an enemy of religion when he declined to issue them.

Jefferson's refusal, as President, to set aside days in the public calendar for religious observances contrasted with his actions in Virginia where, in the late 1770s, he framed "A Bill for Appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving" and, as governor in 1779, designated a day for "publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God."

How can Jefferson's public record on religious proclamations in Virginia be reconciled with the stance he took as President of the United States? The answer, I believe, is found in the principle of federalism. Jefferson firmly believed that the First Amendment, with its metaphoric "wall of separation," prohibited religious establishments by the federal government only. Addressing the same topic of religious proclamations, Jefferson elsewhere relied on the Tenth Amendment, arguing that because "no power to prescribe any religious exercise...has been delegated to the General [i.e., federal] Government[,] it must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority." He sounded the same theme in his Second Inaugural Address, delivered in March 1805:
 
Taking the UK election in 2017

Conservatives - 317
Labour Party - 262
SNP - 35
Liberal Democrats - 12
Democratic Unionist Party - 10
Sinn Fein - 7
Plaid Cymru - 4
Green Party - 1
Speaker (Conservaitve) - 1
Independent Unionist - 1

The leader of the Conservatives, Theresa Mary May,

24D1D49B00000578-0-Home_Secretary_Theresa_May_is_photographed_holding_up_a_placard_-m-4_1421716290408.jpg


is a heterosexual with no children.

The Labour Leader, Jeremy Bernard Corbyn,

jeremy-corbyn_0.jpg


is a heterosexual with 3 mixed-race children.

Sturgeon and Farron have been dealth with above.

The leader of the DUP, Arlene Isabel Foster,
185737106-3b99e703-7428-4458-bc39-77884234f442.jpg


is a heterosexual Christian with 3 children.

Gerard Adams,

gerry-adams-northern-ireland-peace-process-2-752x501.jpg


leader of Sinn Fein, is a Catholic Irishman.

The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood,

leanne-wood-945170156.jpg


is straight and has a daughter.

Technically there are 3 separate Green Parties for England & Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. But if we take the English and Welsh join leaders, Johnathan Bartley and Caroline Patricia Lucas,

stream_img.jpg


are heterosexuals with children.

I am not going to consider the Speaker as separate from the Conservatives although technically he is.

Sylvia Eileen, Lady Hermon,

2511354957.jpg


the UK's only independent MP, is a heterosexual with chilren.


Giving us 28 out of 650 seats held by parties (or independents) with straight leaders with British children. And of those only 11 are in favour of Brexit and preserving the Union - that's the Northern Irish MPs.
+I like how you mention corbyn having 3 children but them being mix raced.....but rest of the ones who has children just have children. Does the race of the child make any difference? Its things like this that make right wingers slip up even when they try their hardest to put on a mask
 
Here's some more information.
http://www.heritage.org/political-p...how-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law
Although today Jefferson's Danbury letter is thought of as a principled statement on the prudential and constitutional relationship between church and state, it was in fact a political statement written to reassure pious Baptist constituents that Jefferson was indeed a friend of religion and to strike back at the Federalist-Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut for shamelessly vilifying him as an infidel and atheist in the recent campaign. James H. Hutson of the Library of Congress has concluded that the President "regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion."[4]

Jefferson's Understanding of the "Wall"

Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the "high and impregnable" wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own "wall of separation."

Jefferson's wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. The wall's primary function was to delineate the constitutional jurisdictions of the national and state governments, respectively, on religious concerns, such as setting aside days in the public calendar for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. Evidence for this jurisdictional or structural understanding of the wall can be found in both the texts and the context of the correspondence between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association.[5]

President Jefferson had been under Federalist attack for refusing to issue executive proclamations setting aside days for national fasting and thanksgiving, and he said he wanted to explain his policy on this delicate matter. He told Attorney General Levi Lincoln that his response to the Danbury Baptists "furnishes an occasion too, which I have long wished to find, of saying why I do not proclaim fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors [Presidents Washington and Adams] did." The President was eager to address this topic because his Federalist foes had demanded religious proclamations and then smeared him as an enemy of religion when he declined to issue them.

Jefferson's refusal, as President, to set aside days in the public calendar for religious observances contrasted with his actions in Virginia where, in the late 1770s, he framed "A Bill for Appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving" and, as governor in 1779, designated a day for "publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God."

How can Jefferson's public record on religious proclamations in Virginia be reconciled with the stance he took as President of the United States? The answer, I believe, is found in the principle of federalism. Jefferson firmly believed that the First Amendment, with its metaphoric "wall of separation," prohibited religious establishments by the federal government only. Addressing the same topic of religious proclamations, Jefferson elsewhere relied on the Tenth Amendment, arguing that because "no power to prescribe any religious exercise...has been delegated to the General [i.e., federal] Government[,] it must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority." He sounded the same theme in his Second Inaugural Address, delivered in March 1805:

Why should I read some shit that you don't have the time to even summarize?

And if you are going to start posting articles from The Heritage Foundation, you might as well start posting stuff from Brietbart as well.
 
Why should I read some shit that you don't have the time to even summarize?

And if you are going to start posting articles from The Heritage Foundation, you might as well start posting stuff from Brietbart as well.
Don't be scared homie, it's only a few paragraphs and the facts are well established.
 
Don't be scared homie, it's only a few paragraphs and the facts are well established.

If you are going to start posting articles from The Heritage Foundation, you might as well start posting stuff from Brietbart as well and go full retard.
 
Back
Top