UnionStrong
Sorry, but I don’t care anymore.
Micheal Moores twin sister? Why do fat ugly women care about abortion? Lol
1 in 4 women have abortions? Wow.
- Thread starter quad decade guy
- Start date
Micheal Moores twin sister? Why do fat ugly women care about abortion? Lol
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
By far leftist are the least giving people on the planet.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
Yep. They'll brag endlessly about some first time donation they made that's less than a monthly tithe.
And that's the generous ones.
UnionStrong
Sorry, but I don’t care anymore.
And the most ignorant, misinformed people.
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
It what happens when you believe the government can fix your problems. They believe taxes are the same as charity.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
And because they are bad people surrounded by equally bad people in their liberal bubbles, they have no idea how much the church is holding the fabric of society together while they twerk, kill kids, and save trees.
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
More than 1 million voters switch to GOP in warning for Dems
WASHINGTON (AP) — A political shift is beginning to take hold across the U.S. as tens of thousands of suburban swing voters who helped fuel the Democratic Party's gains in recent years are becoming Republicans.
apnews.com
Personal responsibility? Indeed. Such as buying health insurance rather than to throw yourself onto the public dole . Then going out and preaching "personal responsibility" while damning the Democrats for spending what you believe to be too much money on health and human services programs....LMFAO.
newolddude
Well-Known Member
Noem defends no exception for rape, incest in South Dakota trigger law: No reason for "another tragedy" to occur
South Dakota's trigger law was passed in 2005 and does not include exceptions for rape or incest.
www.cbsnews.com
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
Good.Noem defends no exception for rape, incest in South Dakota trigger law: No reason for "another tragedy" to occur
South Dakota's trigger law was passed in 2005 and does not include exceptions for rape or incest.
A child should never be executed for the crime of the father.
Red Devil
The Power of Connected
This morning by a 6-3 majority SCOTUS backed a Washington state public school football coach's right to pray after a game and had the audacity in it's opinion to lecture the American people about "tolerance and mutual respect" Unless of course you're a poor unmarried woman with an unplanned pregnancy.
Did you hear Collins and Manchin's comments about Roe? Called Gorsuch , Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett liars for testifying under oath stating their commitment to finished law and past legal precedent and none is more so than Roe. Their testimony to that effect is all there in both transcripts and video taped testimony record during their confirmation hearings which they stated emphatically their support to uphold finished law. No surprise. These are the quality of the judges the cuckservatives want on the court.
Did you hear Collins and Manchin's comments about Roe? Called Gorsuch , Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett liars for testifying under oath stating their commitment to finished law and past legal precedent and none is more so than Roe. Their testimony to that effect is all there in both transcripts and video taped testimony record during their confirmation hearings which they stated emphatically their support to uphold finished law. No surprise. These are the quality of the judges the cuckservatives want on the court.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
They never pledged to support Roe. None of them.
A poor, unmarried woman is shown tolerance and mutual respect by not allowing her to commit murder.
Murder doesn't help anyone.
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
My limited, off the top of my head understanding is, that the 14th Amendment originally was ratified in order to state and protect the fact that newly freed slaves would be afforded the same rights as all freeborn people of the United States. That being born with dark skin and having biological roots stemming from the African continent did not subjugate people to livestock status. The laws of the land would not (and could not) be written in such a way as to treat them as “less than”. As citizens, they would have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as all citizens.
It’s really a simple pronouncement but one that is demonstrably powerful. It’s the United States emphatically putting forth that slavery would no longer be a “states rights” issue. And as we’ve seen over the last hundred years or so, the same spirit has been called upon in the courts to reaffirm the equality of other groups in the eyes of the law. It is the basis of the “protected classes”.
View attachment 389870
Although it’s been argued many times that the 14th amendment “creates rights where the constitution doesn’t give them”, to me that misses the foundation of America, it’s founding, and it’s progressive path better government. The ratification of the 14th amendment should have put to bed forever some of the mindsets we see boldly stated today: that the US is a Christian nation. that white Europeans built this country. that women make less money because their work is worth less. On and on it goes.
In short, the equal protection clause states in no uncertain terms that such statements are bulland the federal government will protect the rights of all individuals. In cases where it is believed that a state acts unlawfully against an individual or a group under state law, the federal government can and does intervene to “protect the civil rights” of the person or persons.
As I said, very simple concept but powerful in its fundamental nature.
The objection is to using the 14th amendment as a way for the court to manufacture legislation. Most unenumerated rights are derived from the 9th and 10th amendments, with privacy already being affirmed by the 4th amendment.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
So being tolerant of someone praying, and being tolerant of someone bashing in a baby's skull, are equivalent?
That's a pretty messed up viewpoint lady.
I don’t really see it as manufacturing legislation. In fact, I see it as an “eye roll” that a lot of things have to be spelled out the way they do. Gay marriage for instance. It’s not as if government HAS to be involved in marriage at all. But if it is going to be, then it should treat all citizens the same.
Even the 14th amendment itself. I imagine it’s writers thinking, “WTF?!? We just had a friend n war, an emancipation proclamation and still we have to further clarify?!?”
Or civil rights legislation. How many times does the US government need to explain the rights of all its citizens no matter their social or biological makeup?
And it’s possible that the founders never intended for much of this to happen. Maybe they never intended for women to vote. Maybe blacks were to remain forever slaves or second class citizens. In that case friend the founder and we aren’t going back to where Justice Thomas would have us go. Call it Divine Providence.
Yah, because we all know getting a heart attack is just as likely as getting pregnant without protection.
Roe should have never happened. It should have been up to the individual states whether they allowed abortion or not. SCOTUS just righted a 49 year wrong, that's all.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
Is there a reason you guys care so much about killing poor children, that are disproportionately minority?
You want less of them around or something?
You want less of them around or something?
Is this your next laughably ridiculous claim? Forty nine year old Roe v Wade NOT finished law? If
R v W is not an established legal precedent and finished law then exactly which prior rulings are and are NOT finished law?
You're trying to do something akin to Tex. He tries all the time to try and cherry pick social program legislation. There's no bigger supporter of the social programs that benefit him than old Tex. While at the same time there's no louder critic of those programs that don't benefit him than Tex.
Now 50 years ago this nation was 80% white and Christian. Today, that number is less than 50% and the overturning of Roe is not likely to impact those numbers in a way that favors whites. This nation's birthrate is the lowest since 1930 . No SCOTUS is going to have much of an impact on those numbers. Today's American woman is keenly aware of the fact that she has nobody to count on but herself and will continue to place her own self preservation at the top of her agenda and you cannot blame her.
States should follow Ohio's example. Get the resources in place NOW if in the event that there is an upward surge in the number of unwanted babies. Ohio isn't buying the thumpers and lifers nonsense about them all being adopted. The numbers say otherwise.
Full responsibility for creating this mess lies with the thumpers and pro lifers and as the saying goes....."if you're not p[art of the solution...then you're part of the problem.
Similar threads
- traveler
- The Archives