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

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!" "Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded" Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR! British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames "Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe. "The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent" CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino) Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting! POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25 2026 in Bible Prophecy 2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat 🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025 Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong England is on the Brink of Civil War! Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE "Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’" Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024 Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization. The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with What the fagots LGBTQ really means I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience. Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson) "Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’" "Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon" Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk Charlotte train murder: Graphic video captures random fatal stabbing of young Ukrainian refugee Berlin in July 1945 - Probably the best restored film material you'll watch from that time! Ok this is Funny Walking Through 1980s Los Angeles: The City That Reinvented Cool THE ZOMBIES OF AMERICA THE OLDEST PHOTOS OF NEW YORK YOU'VE NEVER SEEN John Rich – Calling Out P. Diddy, TVA Scandal, and Joel Osteen | SRS #232 Capablanca Teaches Us The ONLY Chess Opening You'll Ever Need "How Bruce Springsteen Fooled America" How ancient Rome was excavated in Italy in the 1920s. Unique rare videos and photos. 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: 52393 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 (1-160) not displayed.       .       .       . #161. To: ConservingFreedom (#160) What do you imagine that the Court ruled, given that you've never read the decision? Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:48:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #162. To: misterwhite (#159) The ruling was that it would have an effect on interstate commerce. And - more significantly, and incorrectly - that this fact made their production properly subject to federal regulation. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:49:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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         .       .       . Comments (201 - 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