[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: 43168 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 (1-110) not displayed.       .       .       . #111. To: redleghunter (#97) "The pro life movement is focused on preserving innocent human life and that means shutting down those who provide the service." So why did you bring up murder? misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   16:37:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #112. To: SOSO (#107) "You may also be interest in this as it addresses the Fed's Constitutional right to regulate state activities from the git-go, prior to the BoR." Nope. Only interstates activities (or those actions that affect interstate activities). misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   16:41:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #113. To: rlk, Y'ALL (#110) Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion? --- rlk You're confused. --- Corruption and degeneracy have always been a national sport. Religion? --- Various kinds of religions have always been treated like sports in America. --- That's why it was necessary to specify: --- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." tpaine  posted on  2016-04-03   18:06:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #114. To: misterwhite (#112) "You may also be interest in this as it addresses the Fed's Constitutional right to regulate state activities from the git-go, prior to the BoR." Nope. Only interstates activities (or those actions that affect interstate activities). It is obvious that you did not read the link. The words interstate activities are not in the Constitution but the words interstate commerce are, and as with the word person the Constitution does not define what is meant by commerce. But the definition seem to get more and more broad as time went by. We can not have a rational dialogue if you do not even ready what the Constitution says. So here it is: "Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" That is all is says. So from git-go differing interests have advocated all sorts of means of these few Constitutional words. ""The meaning of the word "commerce" is a source of much of the controversy. The Constitution does not explicitly define the word. Some argue that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that the founders intended to describe more broadly commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. Thus, the interpretation of "commerce" affects the appropriate dividing line between federal and state power. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation and prohibited discrimination against African-Americans, was passed under the Commerce Clause in order to allow the federal government to charge non-state actors with Equal Protection violations, which it had been unable to do up to that point because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s limited application to state actors. The Supreme Court found that Congress had the authority to regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. 379 U.S. 241 (1964). It also ruled that the federal civil rights legislation could be used to regulate a restaurant, Ollie’s Barbeque, a family- owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama because, although most of Ollie’s customers were local, the restaurant served food which had previously crossed state lines. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 274 (1964)." So tell me, what does interstate commerce mean as used in Art 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   23:14:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #115. To: rlk (#110) Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion? Please tell us. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   23:16:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #116. To: SOSO (#114) the words interstate commerce are Bzzzzt. Wrong. As always. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-03   23:17:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #117. To: misterwhite (#111) *Sigh* For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-03   23:30:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #118. To: redleghunter, y'all (#117) For pro life Christians there is no ambiguity. Abortion in most cases is the premeditated taking of human life. There is only one word in the Hebrew for this and that is murder. --- redleghunter In his own bumbling way, Trump has thrown light on a major flaw in the 'abortion is murder' voting bloc. No jury in the USA is ever going to convict a mother for early term abortion/murder. *Sigh* Yep, Trumped again... tpaine  posted on  2016-04-03   23:41:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #119. To: SOSO (#115) Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion? Please tell us. You get a celebrated expansion of corruption and degeneracy licensed by the constitution and consequent/subsequent collapse of the nation. rlk  posted on  2016-04-03   23:43:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #120. To: rlk, Y'ALL (#119) Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion? --- rlk You're confused. --- Corruption and degeneracy have always been a national sport. Religion? --- Various kinds of religions have always been treated like sports in America. --- That's why it was necessary to specify: --- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." And now, sports fans, we have the celebrated (in some circles?) RLK, answering himself: --- ---- You get a celebrated expansion of corruption and degeneracy licensed by the constitution and consequent/subsequent collapse of the nation. "Lands sake!" - My old aunties used to rave; -- "This new generation is going to hell in a handbasket".. tpaine  posted on  2016-04-03   23:58:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #121. To: rlk (#119) Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion? Please tell us. You get a celebrated expansion of corruption and degeneracy licensed by the constitution and consequent/subsequent collapse of the nation. I don't know if the Constitution actually licenses the corruption and degeneracy. It's more that We The People do. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   0:39:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #122. To: SOSO (#121) (Edited) I don't know if the Constitution actually licenses the corruption and degeneracy. It's more that We The People do. People are born with antisocial or stupid capabilities, that may be enjoyable temporarily, but are counterbalanced by childrearing practices, by aquisition of morality and prudent adulthood, by social stigma, and by legal punition. Some people refer to these capabilities as original sin. Should you have a legal system which contradicts these counterbalances or attributes social acceptance to free expression of these undesirable capabilities, you increase increase probability of their occurrance as per Pavlovs dogs. That's complex psychological operant conditioning using a pat on the head from the law of the land as a reinforcer. rlk  posted on  2016-04-04   2:40:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #123. To: SOSO (#114) "The words interstate activities are not in the Constitution but the words interstate commerce are" Then why did you use the phrase "state activities"? I was simply following your lead. If I phrased it I would say, " Only interstate commerce (or those activities that affect interstate commerce). Better? Doesn't change the fact that you're still wrong. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   9:22:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #124. To: rlk (#122) a pat on the head from the law of the land as a reinforcer. Not throwing someone in jail is "a pat on the head"? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   11:15:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #125. To: misterwhite (#123) Better? Doesn't change the fact that you're still wrong. I am wrong that the Interstate Commerce Clause was used to allow federal intervention in civil rights issues? Can you find that federal power in the wording of the Interstate Commerce Clause? I can't. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   11:42:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #126. To: ConservingFreedom (#124) Not throwing someone in jail is "a pat on the head"? Another nutcase waving phoney exaggerations. rlk  posted on  2016-04-04   12:04:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #127. To: rlk (#126) So what exactly were you referring to as "a pat on the head from the law of the land" if not the "legal punition" you mentioned? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   12:17:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #128. To: SOSO (#125) "I am wrong that the Interstate Commerce Clause was used to allow federal intervention in civil rights issues? It was, but not directly. Federal civil rights laws were applied to the states because state discrimination laws had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   12:31:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #129. To: ConservingFreedom (#127) (Edited) Take a reading course and a second course in logic to find an answer to your question. rlk  posted on  2016-04-04   12:40:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #130. To: rlk (#129) So what exactly were you referring to as "a pat on the head from the law of the land" if not the "legal punition" you mentioned? Take a reading course and a second course in logic to find an answer to your question. So your grandiloquent rhetoric was empty of meaningful content ... why am I not surprised? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   13:12:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #131. To: misterwhite (#128) Federal civil rights laws were applied to the states because state discrimination laws had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. So you agree that use of the Interestate Commerce Clause was what the original intended and meant by the clause? My point is that de facto the activities that the Fed claims fall under the ICC have gone far beyond what the FFs intended it to be. But more to the point, within this expanded grab by the Fed it is entirely within the likely that the Fed will use the ICC to regulate abortion activities in general, the enforcement of consequences for the woman in particular. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   13:31:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #132. To: vicomte13 (#0) 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. ARe you still are supporting Trump even though he will not change the abortion laws? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   13:38:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #133. To: SOSO (#132) ARe you still are supporting Trump even though he will not change the abortion laws? Yes. The President doesn't make abortion law. Neither does the Congress. The Supreme Court does. Trump will appoint three Scalias, and abortion law will change, in time, maybe. And I support Trump's foreign and military and health care policies. If anybody else is the nominee, the Republicans will lose the election, and then Hillary will name her justices. For all of the skulduggery on the Republican side to deny the nomination to Trump,. he's the only one who can win. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-04   13:58:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #134. To: SOSO (#131) "So you agree that use of the Interestate Commerce Clause was what the original intended and meant by the clause? " Yes. But in later applications of the Commerce Clause, Congress used the power of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (the Necessary and Proper Clause) to make laws allowing them to enforce other powers. For example, in the Shreveport Rate Cases, it was necessary for the government to regulate intrastate rates because they had an effect on interstate rates. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:04:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #135. To: misterwhite (#134) Shreveport Rate Cases That rotten FDR!!!!! Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:05:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #136. To: Vicomte13 (#133) "If anybody else is the nominee, the Republicans will lose the election, and then Hillary will name her justices." Seems to me that if someone was really pro-life they'd vote for Trump. Otherwise they'll end up with pro-choice Hillary. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:06:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #137. To: misterwhite, SOSO (#134) in the Shreveport Rate Cases, it was necessary for the government to regulate intrastate rates because they had an effect on interstate rates. The Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates - and its only broader language is to limit the ends for which that authority is meant to be used, namely preventing state-versus-state battles (which does not include all nonuniformity among states): "Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'" A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:10:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #138. To: ConservingFreedom (#137) The Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates Imaginative. The power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extended to matters having "a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic," Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for the majority. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:14:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #139. To: misterwhite (#134) "So you agree that use of the Interestate Commerce Clause was what the original intended and meant by the clause? " Yes. Then why don't you believe that the Fed could use the ICC to regulate and enforce consequences on a woman having the abortion? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   14:16:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #140. To: Roscoe (#138) "The fact that carriers are instruments of intrastate commerce, as well as of interstate commerce, does not derogate from the complete and paramount authority of Congress over the latter, or preclude the Federal power from being exerted to prevent the intrastate operations of such carriers from being made a means of injury to that which has been confided to Federal care. Wherever the interstate and intrastate transactions of carriers are so related that the government of the one involves the control of the other, it is Congress, and not the state, that is entitled to prescribe the final and dominant rule, for otherwise Congress would be denied the exercise of its constitutional authority, and the state, and not the nation, would be supreme within the national field." [emphasis added] A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:18:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #141. To: ConservingFreedom, misterwhite, All (#137) "Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'" AH, in other words to promote unnecessarily encumbered or regulated free trade among the states? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   14:20:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #142. To: SOSO (#139) "Then why don't you believe that the Fed could use the ICC to regulate and enforce consequences on a woman having the abortion?" What's the connection to interstate commerce? misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:22:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #143. To: Roscoe (#138) The full passage: "Its authority, extending to these interstate carriers as instruments of interstate commerce, necessarily embraces the right to control their operations in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic that the control is essential or appropriate to the security of that traffic, to the efficiency of the interstate service, and to the maintenance of conditions under which interstate commerce may be conducted upon fair terms and without molestation or hindrance." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:24:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #144. To: SOSO (#141) "AH, in other words to promote unnecessarily encumbered or regulated free trade among the states?" "To regulate" does not mean "to promote". If the Founders meant "to promote" they would have written "to promote". misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:25:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #145. To: SOSO (#141) AH, in other words to promote unnecessarily encumbered or regulated free trade among the states? If you're suggesting that even Shreveport gave excessive leeway to the feds, I'm open to that argument - but it remains the case that Shreveport did not support Wickard v Filburn's sweeping "substantial effect" fabrication (though that Court pretended it did). A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:27:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #146. To: Roscoe (#143) Even your deceptive truncation, "a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic," would mean a narrower test - "close and substantial" is by definition less inclusive than "substantial." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:30:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #147. To: ConservingFreedom (#143) in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic Nice foot shot! Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:34:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #148. To: ConservingFreedom (#145) Wickard v Filburn's sweeping "substantial effect" fabrication Without a substantial effect restriction, there's no restriction at all. Do you ever stop to think about what you're typing? Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:37:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #149. To: ConservingFreedom (#145) "but it remains the case that Shreveport did not support Wickard v Filburn's sweeping "substantial effect" fabrication (though that Court pretended it did)." So allowing each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have had no effect on the interstate commerce of wheat? misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:37:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #150. To: rlk (#122) Should you have a legal system which contradicts these counterbalances or attributes social acceptance to free expression of these undesirable capabilities, you increase increase probability of their occurrance as per Pavlovs dogs. That's complex psychological operant conditioning using a pat on the head from the law of the land as a reinforcer. So the government should make and enforce laws that prohibit actions arising from original sins? So the government be allowed to mandate the attributes and actions of parenthood and enforce consequences for failure of parents to comply with the government model and proscription of parenthood? So the government should define what actions are to be shamed and mandate that every person publically shame those actions? How Orwellian are you? It has always been, as with every law since the recorded history of man, that the Constitution meant nothing other than the enforcer of the law (in our case We The People) insist and defend that it does. The fault is not with the Constitution but with We The People. If We The People choose not to enforce the laws against slavery the practice of slavery, though technically illegal, would persist. If you contest this just look at what happened during Prohibition. As for the Pavlovian response of which you speak, that is more a consequence of brainwashing in the public schools, MSM, advertising, Hollywood and the entertainment industry, social media, and, yes, even our religious institutions. It has nothing to do with the corruption of our legal system. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   14:38:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (151 - 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