Jorge Arbusto's fault... He's the one who downsized & outsourced our industrial infrastructury that is now produced more "efficiently" in Third World shitholes...
Trump is 20 years too late, we should've elected Ross Perot when we had the chance...
But I don't give a shit anymore.... I'm probably gonna croak sometime within the next 3~4 years anyway...
Fuck all them idiots that did this... They fuckin' ruined this whole goddam planet for everybody...
Too many goddam people, too much goddam garbage & trash... plastics, pesticides, fertilizer runnoff, flushed pharmaceuticals... Gonna all disrupt the global foodchain, drug-resistant diseases running rampant worldwide....
There's no avoiding it... I just hope I croak from old age before it hits
I see no reason to focus on Paul Singer, even though he may be the worst of his ilk...
But that's how they did it during Arbusto's reign.... Mitt Romney & Bain Capital were no different...
Fuck 'em all... And Fuck Tump too.... he can't bring any of that stuff back no matter what he does... He's just a fucking conartist & grifter who's taking advantage of poor gullible fools who think there's still hope.....
Ok, that explains a little. Thanks. I'm doing what I can for my progeny. Not sure what or if. I have this feeling for my country, but I'm not sure if it is any different than family, in both cases there's some dumbasses that I'd like to choke.
Mitt Romney & Bain Capital were no different.
Yep, same moral arrogance.
I'm not sure about Trump. We'll see. My understanding is that it's a nationalist (Trump, Netanyahoo) vs. globalist. The next 6 months will reveal a lot.
And yeah, there's no bringing the past back in terms or economic functions, but there may be a decent uprising (again) of the common man. Tulsi Gabbard is the only person on stage that I see with a glimmer of understanding.
Tulsi is a mass murderer. She supports killing American children. She wants to end oil production. She doesn't want us to fight back against terrorists. She is a piece of shit.
Vic said that he wanted to raise our taxes here so we can have a global welfare system.
Vic will not escape the judgment that will befall him when the globalist finally succeed in uniting the world (against God). Global welfare, global governance, global this, global that.
God didn't divide the peoples of the world (through language) just for fun. When everyone had a common language they rose up as one against God.
Now, world leaders like the Pope are openly calling for global welfare et al. When they succeed, and they will, God will answer once again...and it will hurt.
Mass starvation, disease, death...and that's only the beginning of sorrows.
but there may be a decent uprising (again) of the common man.
Yeah, social upheaval is a given, especially with rising expectations in the overpopulated 'developing' Third World... Everybody (can't blame them) wants developed Western World standard or living, but it's an unsustainable goal... too much stress on the planet's natural resources, even totalitarian states like China & Indonesia won't be able to suppress the peasants..... But the same will be true in Africa & South America.... The Syrian conflict is just a mild precursor to global unrest....
No, the only people Bernie and Lieawatha want to tax are those who have worked hard to put together some wealth relative to their labor.
Well, Pokemecuntas did at least pretend that she was going after the leeches on Wall Street. They didn't like it, you can tell by those "poll" numbers.
Endorsed Endorsed by EMILY's list for pro-choice Democratic women. (Aug 2012)
Yep, she's a politician running for office on the Democrat slate from an overwhelmingly Democrat part of the country.
Like it or not, abortion is the Establishment's policy and it was put in place by Republicans. It will be there until the population declines precipitously. Most young women support it because they don't want as many children as modern medicine allows to survive.
Although I understand the concerns of the pro-abort crowd, I continue to oppose abortion on a moral basis, as it is a crude and vicious form of birth control that corrodes the emotional well being of the people.
When I watch her I see a good hearted woman who is also intelligent and seeks the truth of matters. She may not always be right (re: agree with me), but she is not deliberately corrupt. That alone is worth support.
Finally, her adoption of the mono-theistic (and Christian-like) branch of the Hindu religion is far more acceptable than the anti-Christian Jewish swamp we live with now.
I also hate that Catholics are liars like you just did. Catholics hold the majority in the Supreme Court they can end it today. But you dumb Catholics are like Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown. Lukewarm is what you are. An excuse maker for satan's democrats.
Put in place by Republicans. Sorry for calling you a liar but that isn't really true.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Opinion of the Court 7-2; 5D, 2R
Blackmun (R) delivered the Opinion of the court joined by 6 more. Burger (R) Marshall (D) Powell (D) Douglas (D) filed a concurring opinion. Brennan (D) filed a concurring opinion. Stewart (R) filed a concurring opinion.
Dissenting justices: 1D, 1R
White (D) filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist joined. Rehnquist (R) filed a dissenting opinion.
The Court contained 6 nominees by Republican presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan.
It contained 3 nominees by Democrat presidents FDR, JFK, and LBJ.
Justice Powell was a Democrat nominated by Republican Nixon.
Justice Brennan was a Democrat nominated by Republican Eisenhower.
The Court contained 5 Democrat justices and 4 Republican justices.
So, we're going to count judges nominated by Republican Presidents as "Democrat" judges?
Well then, given that the Supreme Court has been continuously controlled by Republican nominees since Nixon, please tell us the date after which the Republican nominees were nominally Republican. I believe that occurred under Reagan.
O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Roberts - these are Republican nominees who are nominally Republican. And they've provided the bulwark to prevent the Republican majority Court from overturning Roe.
So, we're going to count judges nominated by Republican Presidents as "Democrat" judges?
No, I advocated for no such conclusion. I only reposted my years old recitation of the party of the justices and the presidents who nominated them.
I find the entire argument absurd. Lo these many years, I have never found the abortion clause of the Constitution. I do not find it to be a constitutional matter at all.
Whether a judge is a Catholic, Protestant, Jew or other, he or she should decide based on United States law, not some personal perception of God's law. Finding something morally repugnant or acceptable does nothing to determine it to be either constitutional or unconstitutional.
The first law citing murder was in 1790 and only applied to places under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. Murder elsewhere was not a Federal matter. Even if abortion were considered infanticide, it would not have been a crime against the United States.
SEC. 3. And be it [further] enacted, That if any person or persons shall, within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or in any other place or district of country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, commit the crime of wilful murder, such person or persons on being thereof convicted shall suffer death.
The argument over Roe proceeds from the false choice of Roe, or a reversal of Roe prohibiting all abortion. I believe it should be a matter of state jurisdiction. Roe should be overturned for lack of jurisdiction, and the matter returned to the States.
Whether a judge is Dem or GOP should not determine how he rules. Jonathan Turley just proved that it is possible for a Democrat attorney to interpret the law independent of the general political leanings of his party.
At the time of Roe, it was entirely possible for a conservative Southern Democrat to be much more conservative than what was then a moderate Northeastern moderate Republican. A party indicator from nearly 50 years ago provides no indicator of that justice's legal leanings. Even a current party indicator does not identify how one would interpret the Constitution.
The party indicator of the nominating official provides less than nothing.
Summary: 'I disagree with Person X, therefore he's a bastard, a piece of garbage and a Communist.' - A K A Stone
Your summary is inaccurate.
It is more like this.
Person X holds an evil act as a good act. So person X is a piece of shit or a communist in your case. In your case because you espouse communist ideology in some manners.
You can disagree and think people that support murdering children are admirable and not pieces of shit. But according to Stones rules if you admire a piece of shit you are a piece of shit.
Jonathan Turley just proved that it is possible for a Democrat attorney to interpret the law independent of the general political leanings of his party.
Still the Catholics could end abortion if they wanted to. They must not want to. Which makes sense you being a supporter of an abortion candidate Bloomdork.
Should states be allowed to make it legal to murder adults or just innocent never hurt anyone babies?
Where should the power lie?
Should the Supreme Court have the power to make it legal to murder adults or anyone's babies?
Should the Supreme Court have such power in the absence of any decision by the Federal political branch (the Legislature) in the form of a law? There was no Federal law at issue in Roe. No Federal law prevented a State from banning abortion. Roe relied on constitutional interpretation to strike down a Texas State law. In doing so, it made that interpretation applicable to all the States, striking down all conflicting State law.
Remember, vesting such power in the Supreme Court can, and did, result in Roe v. Wade, striking down all laws contrary to that vision of the Constitution.
