[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! "The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent" 7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza? What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225 EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start? "Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work" test "Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working" "Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly" "Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home" "The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity" "How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy" Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes Status: Not Logged In; Sign In politics and politicians See other politics and politicians Articles Title: Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are [CBS] Source: Ace Of Spades URL Source: http://ace.mu.nu/#362525 Published: Apr 1, 2016 Author: Ace Post Date: 2016-04-02 09:46:31 by Tooconservative Keywords: None Views: 42865 Comments: 253 Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are I'm changing, I'm changing. I'm softening that position. However, he then added that abortion is murder. Asked how he'd like to change the law to further restrict access to abortions, Trump replied, "The laws are set now on abortion and that's the way they're going to remain until they're changed." "I would've preferred states' rights," he added. "I think it would've been better if it were up to the states. But right now, the laws are set....At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way." "Do you think abortion is murder?" Dickerson asked. "I have my opinions on it, but I'd rather not comment on it," Trump replied. "You said you were very pro-life," Dickerson followed up. "Pro-life means that...abortion is murder." "I mean, I do have my opinions on it. I just don't think it's an appropriate forum," said Trump. "But you don't disagree with that proposition, that it's murder?" Dickerson asked. "No, I don't disagree with it," Trump eventually replied. Okay. As long as you're giving the proper amount of thought to these issues. There was once a very intelligent man who said, "The moment Trump gets into trouble, he's going to start pandering like crazy to liberals, because he just doesn't know any better." Here we see Trump finally realizing the damage he caused to himself with Michelle Fields and Heidi Cruz, plus his own goal on abortion, so his response, to get back those women he cherishes so much, is to say "Hey, let's leave the abortion laws as they are. But privately, I think abortion is murder. FYI." I seriously can't think of a worse political position: On one hand, he's telling the pro-life people I'm not changing any abortion laws. Fine, okay, most presidents won't try, but few are as upfront in telling a key part of the conservative movement they're getting the goose-egg. Simultaneously, on the other hand, he pisses off the pro-choice people, by telling them that, while he won't be changing the abortion laws, that abortion is murder. It's lose-lose. With a bonus lose for it being dreadfully obvious that he simply hasn't given the issue a lick of thought and is now just basically button-mashing (as Allah puts it) in hopes that some combination of inputs gets him past the boss on this level. Posted by Ace at 07:27 PM Comments Donald Trump: About That Thing I Just Said A Few Hours Ago-- Nevermind —Ace The woman will, or rather will not be punished, and the laws will not, or rather will, be changed. .@realDonaldTrump spox Hope Hicks walks back Trump abortion comments to CBS. Says Trump WILL change law on abortion pic.twitter.com/1oedertZbC— Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) April 2, 2016 Hey, by ten o'clock we might have another Trump position on abortion, so stay tuned. Posted by Ace at 09:03 PM Comments Poster Comment: The carnival barker executes another double-backflip on abortion. It takes real courage to confuse yourself with all these "hypotheticals" four times in less than four days. But it's only murder. Well, unless it isn't. Who really knows anyway? You keep thinking the rats will realize they're following the Pied Piper but ... Let the Trumpsplaining commence! Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-162) not displayed.       .       .       . #163. To: Roscoe (#158) "They hate the Constitution and want to insert sub silentio restrictions in it." Yeah. They do that sub silentio stuff with anechoic tiles. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:49:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #164. To: misterwhite (#163) Okay, I had to look up anechoic tiles. [grumble] Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:50:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #165. To: Roscoe (#157) You've never read the case, have you? Opposite - I've read it closely enough to note its acknowledgment of previous narrower restrictions. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:51:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #166. To: ConservingFreedom (#162) And - more significantly, and incorrectly - that this fact made their production properly subject to federal regulation. Incorrectly? Sorry. There was Supreme Court precedent for intrastate regulations. We just discussed the Shreveport Rate Cases. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:58:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #167. To: Roscoe (#164) "Okay, I had to look up anechoic tiles. [grumble]" The "sub silentio" didn't give you enough? Thought it would. Sorry. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:59:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #168. To: ConservingFreedom (#165) (Edited) I've read it closely enough In other words, you haven't read it. I thought so. Roscoe filed suit because he wanted a federal marketing card guaranteeing limited liability for liens on the wheat sold to his buyers. The federal government told him if he wanted to join the subsidy program for protection against the prevailing "ruinously low prices resulting from excess supply" he would have to abide by the rules. No tickee, no washee. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:01:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #169. To: ConservingFreedom (#165) "Opposite - I've read it closely enough to note its acknowledgment of previous narrower restrictions." So if the next interstate case involves cabbages, Wickard v Filburn wouldn't apply? misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   15:01:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #170. To: misterwhite (#166) We just discussed the Shreveport Rate Cases. Add I showed in posts 137, 140, and 143 that the Shreveport ruling was less broad than the Wickard ruling pretended. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   15:06:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #171. To: Roscoe (#168) Roscoe filed suit because he wanted a federal marketing card guaranteeing limited liability for liens on the wheat sold to his buyers. The federal government told him if he wanted to join the subsidy program for protection against the prevailing "ruinously low prices resulting from excess supply" he would have to abide by the rules. In the course of so ruling the Court made statements that it worded broadly and that many subsequent rulings have interpreted broadly - notably, "even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'" A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   15:11:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #172. To: ConservingFreedom (#170) 1. The Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates 2. Add I showed in posts 137, 140, and 143 that the Shreveport ruling was less broad So Wickard was broader and more restrictive, limiting a wider range of Congressional controls. By your "reasoning." Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:12:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #173. To: ConservingFreedom (#171) The appellee was suing to join the regulatory program. Surprise! Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:14:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #174. To: misterwhite (#169) Opposite - I've read it closely enough to note its acknowledgment of previous narrower restrictions. So if the next interstate case involves cabbages, Wickard v Filburn wouldn't apply? Since that's a howling non sequitur as it stands, I'll try to move the conversation forward by guessing what you're really asking - feel free to clarify your meaning. Was the Wickard ruling broad? Yes, it was - much broader than the Shreveport ruling on which it pretended to (at least in part) be based. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   15:15:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #175. To: Roscoe (#172) So Wickard was broader and more restrictive, limiting a wider range of Congressional controls. By your "reasoning." No, that in no way follows from anything I've posted - but thanks for the fascinating albeit disturbing insight into what passes for "reasoning" in your fevered mind. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   15:17:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #176. To: Roscoe (#173) The appellee was suing to join the regulatory program. Bully for him - what would you have us conclude from that? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   15:18:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #177. To: misterwhite (#169) So does he prefer Wickard or the Shreveport Rate Cases? It's hard to tell with all his wild thrashing about. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:18:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #178. To: ConservingFreedom (#171) I am surprised that you are trying to piss up a rope. The guy is an incoherent ass. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   15:19:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #179. To: ConservingFreedom (#176) Bully for him Enter an agreement, abide by its rules. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:19:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #180. To: SOSO (#178) And here comes the ankle biter. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:20:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #181. To: Roscoe (#177) So does he prefer Wickard or the Shreveport Rate Cases? It's hard to tell with all his wild thrashing about. If you want to know what I think, ask me, coward. Wickard was an appalling farce - Shreveport much more defensible. And I'm confident that you and maybe misswhite are the only ones willing to pretend I haven't already made that view crystal clear. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   15:22:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #182. To: SOSO (#178) I am surprised that you are trying to piss up a rope. The guy is an incoherent ass. I'm only in a formal sense addressing him - my real audience is anyone who might mistake his posts as in any way valid. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   15:24:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #183. To: ConservingFreedom (#181) Shreveport much more defensible. Even though it restricted a very narrow range of Congressional authority, at least according to you. So by your "reasoning," virtually all Congressional regulation of commerce should go unrestricted. Logic ain't your long suit. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:25:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #184. To: ConservingFreedom (#182) my real audience Is the imaginary cheering throngs in your head. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:26:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #185. To: Roscoe (#183) Even though it restricted a very narrow range of Congressional authority, at least according to you. So by your "reasoning," virtually all Congressional regulation of commerce should go unrestricted. Not at all - for the Court to say that Congressional regulation of intrastate shipping rates is subject to certain limitations is not per se for it to say anything at all about other Congressional regulation. Wickard, by contrast, loosened limitations on Congressional authority and did so with broad language. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   15:29:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #186. To: ConservingFreedom (#185) for the Court to say that Congressional regulation of intrastate shipping rates is subject to certain limitations is not per se for it to say anything at all about other Congressional regulation. IOW, no restrictions. I almost feel sorry for ya. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:31:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #187. To: ConservingFreedom (#182) I am surprised that you are trying to piss up a rope. The guy is an incoherent ass. I'm only in a formal sense addressing him - my real audience is anyone who might mistake his posts as in any way valid. I can't imagine that anyone is interested in what the asshole has to say, even if on the surface he agrees with them for the moment. He reinforces the notion that there is no limit to the number and type of strawmen a moron can conjure. He is a master weasel. He is the poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   15:33:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #188. To: SOSO (#187) Dunning Kruger Dunning-Kruger Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:33:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #189. To: Roscoe (#186) for the Court to say that Congressional regulation of intrastate shipping rates is subject to certain limitations is not per se for it to say anything at all about other Congressional regulation. IOW, no restrictions. No, silence does not imply no restrictions. Who here do you think is stupid enough to be fooled by your hamhanded nonsense? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   15:34:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #190. To: ConservingFreedom (#189) No, silence does not imply no restrictions. Yes, silence imposes no restrictions. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:35:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #191. To: Roscoe (#190) (Edited) The silence of the Court does not muzzle the Constitution, which does impose restrictions. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   15:41:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #192. To: ConservingFreedom (#191) The silence of the Court does not muzzle the Constitution. Zero signal to noise ratio. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:42:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #193. To: ConservingFreedom (#191) "which does impose restrictions." [Edit addition] Quote. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   15:44:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #194. To: Roscoe (#190) "Yes, silence imposes no restrictions." Correct. The natural state of commerce is free and open. Any regulation of that commerce is a restriction. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   15:50:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #195. To: Roscoe (#193) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   16:03:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #196. To: ConservingFreedom (#195) The powers not delegated Commerce clause Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:17:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #197. To: Roscoe (#196) Commerce clause The power to regulate commerce among the several states is delegated - while the power to regulate that which is not commerce among the several states, but substantially affects commerce among the several states, is not. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   16:20:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #198. To: ConservingFreedom (#197) Necessary and proper Have you ever read it? Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:23:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #199. To: Roscoe (#198) Necessary and proper Relevant only upon establishing that regulating that which is not commerce among the several states, but substantially affects commerce among the several states, is both necessary and proper for regulating commerce among the several states. Feel free to so establish. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   16:29:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #200. To: ConservingFreedom (#199) Relevant only upon establishing that regulating that which is not commerce among the several states, but substantially affects commerce among the several states, is both necessary and proper Backwards. Until proven otherwise. The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:30:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #201. To: Roscoe (#200) The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions. Quote. The idea that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine the limits on Congress' authority is ludicrous even for you - and that's saying something. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   16:36:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #202. To: ConservingFreedom (#201) Quote. "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Now you quote the provision requiring Congress to "establish" an exercise of those explicit powers to your satisfaction. At least try. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:41:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #203. To: Roscoe (#202) "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." A swing and a miss by you. The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary and proper. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   16:45:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (204 - 253) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com