Quite right----Dont bring up slavery though, because that will open the whole other can of worms about things like the teabaggers movement and healthcare.... and how race is NOT AT ALL a huge factor involved this current political scene with the ultra right wing nutjobs, and its really all about peoples rights and protecting the unborn (lol).
I'm sorry. Did you just call me, and anyone else associate with the Tea Party racists? And tea baggers? I think you need to take a break from arguing for a while.
Regardless of any semantics, the legal truth is set by the Supreme Court. So, when the Supreme Court held that slavery was compatible with the Constitution, that was the truth? Your question has been answered by several people.
I never said the Supreme Court was always " morally right." At the time, yes that decision made it the legal truth of the day. Thank god it was changed. However you are wrong, nobody has shown where in the Constitution anywhere that free speech is limited. You quoted part of the Declaration of Independence, yet that is not what dictates the law in this country and does not change what the First Amendment says at all. There is nothing saying that free speech is limited from corporations. If you don't like it, then campaign to amend the Constitution, not blame the Supreme Court and call them a "gang of 5" for doing their job just because you don't agree with it.
On consideration, I must admit that the "gang of 5" remark was over-the-top, disrespectful, and I retract it. I'm new to this medium of communication, and it is easy to get carried away, I apologize for that. Concerning free speech, I refer you to (if memory serves me correctly) the decision written by Oliver Wendell Holmes. I do not truly consider this most recent decision to be about free speech, I think the dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens says it better than I can. I believe that you believe that you are speaking FOR freedom, I applaud that, I'm just not sure you're on the right track.
Regardless of any semantics, the legal truth is set by the Supreme Court. So, when the Supreme Court held that slavery was compatible with the Constitution, that was the truth? Your question has been answered by several people.
I never said the Supreme Court was always " morally right." At the time, yes that decision made it the legal truth of the day. Thank god it was changed. However you are wrong, nobody has shown where in the Constitution anywhere that free speech is limited. You quoted part of the Declaration of Independence, yet that is not what dictates the law in this country and does not change what the First Amendment says at all. There is nothing saying that free speech is limited from corporations. If you don't like it, then campaign to amend the Constitution, not blame the Supreme Court and call them a "gang of 5" for doing their job just because you don't agree with it.
On consideration, I must admit that the "gang of 5" remark was over-the-top, disrespectful, and I retract it. I'm new to this medium of communication, and it is easy to get carried away, I apologize for that. Concerning free speech, I refer you to (if memory serves me correctly) the decision written by Oliver Wendell Holmes. I do not truly consider this most recent decision to be about free speech, I think the dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens says it better than I can. I believe that you believe that you are speaking FOR freedom, I applaud that, I'm just not sure you're on the right track.
Well considering the ruling was that corporations can spend money on political advertising, and not directly to campaigns, I don't see how this can be anything but free speech.
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of Nazi Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of Nazi Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of Nazi Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of Nazi Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
Unbelievable.
Oh come one people! How many times have you looked at someone and said, "Damn! That person should really never be allowed to reproduce?" Some of you are probably thinking that about Vulchor and Squirrel right now. ((((this is said half joking.... because I know it's hard to show sarcasm while typing))))
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of Nazi Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
FUCKING HILARIOUS!!! I honestly can't argue with you on this one! Of course it would be wrong and a HUGE violation of rights, but trust me, working in law enforcement I see people everyday that just can't help but think, "why are these people allowed to breed???" You and I should propose this to congress and we could truly say it is a bipartisan proposal! hahaha
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of Nazi Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
Unbelievable.
no dude, really. I was in a apt last week and 2 women just hade babies, one was on her third strike and while I was there she was saying she couldn't go to the store or she might have to stab this woman (woman was not named nor any story given to why this was said). Both dads were in jail for some crime. The other woman seemed more upstanding though she and the other were complaining about being broke and mad that their welfare check hasn't come yet and that they were going to be short for rent as they just bought a new tv. So they were hounding the mom of one of them for money to pay for smokes and rent. So while I was getting done one started to smoke a bong while they had their child right next to them. The other who was nursing was smoking. so you see these children will grow up in this world with these people teaching them. Who knows maybe even wind up in foster care. It's easy to get knocked up and have a kid, it's really tough to be able to support that kid and give it a life that will benefit it in a positive way.
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of Nazi Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
FUCKING HILARIOUS!!! I honestly can't argue with you on this one! Of course it would be wrong and a HUGE violation of rights, but trust me, working in law enforcement I see people everyday that just can't help but think, "why are these people allowed to breed???"
lol, holly crap a huge wedge issue and you and I seem to find some sort of common ground. Though it may be a violation of rights but what about the child? The child has no idea what kind of life they will have or get. Why should they be punished by their parents lack of responsibility? I've often wondered this but I usually get called things for saying it. And I would think it would appease those people who wish to tell a woman they can't do something with their body if they wish... There would be no abortions.
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of Nazi Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
FUCKING HILARIOUS!!! I honestly can't argue with you on this one! Of course it would be wrong and a HUGE violation of rights, but trust me, working in law enforcement I see people everyday that just can't help but think, "why are these people allowed to breed???"
lol, holly crap a huge wedge issue and you and I seem to find some sort of common ground. Though it may be a violation of rights but what about the child? The child has no idea what kind of life they will have or get. Why should they be punished by their parents lack of responsibility? I've often wondered this but I usually get called things for saying it.
Yea, check my last edit where I added something. I think it's a golden idea! lmfao
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of Nazi Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
FUCKING HILARIOUS!!! I honestly can't argue with you on this one! Of course it would be wrong and a HUGE violation of rights, but trust me, working in law enforcement I see people everyday that just can't help but think, "why are these people allowed to breed???"
lol, holly crap a huge wedge issue and you and I seem to find some sort of common ground. Though it may be a violation of rights but what about the child? The child has no idea what kind of life they will have or get. Why should they be punished by their parents lack of responsibility? I've often wondered this but I usually get called things for saying it.
Yea, check my last edit where I added something. I think it's a golden idea! lmfao
Freak and Squirrel here... Yes Mr. President here is our proposal for balancing the budget and for getting rid of this abortion issue......
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of Nazi Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
FUCKING HILARIOUS!!! I honestly can't argue with you on this one! Of course it would be wrong and a HUGE violation of rights, but trust me, working in law enforcement I see people everyday that just can't help but think, "why are these people allowed to breed???"
lol, holly crap a huge wedge issue and you and I seem to find some sort of common ground. Though it may be a violation of rights but what about the child? The child has no idea what kind of life they will have or get. Why should they be punished by their parents lack of responsibility? I've often wondered this but I usually get called things for saying it.
Yea, check my last edit where I added something. I think it's a golden idea! lmfao
Freak and Squirrel here... Yes Mr. President here is our proposal for balancing the budget and for getting rid of this abortion issue......
Yea, and clearly addressing ourselves as "Freak and Squirrel" will just add to our credibility! lol
That protects life for those who are alive, not fetuses that are unwanted----you need to check Roe vs Wade for that one. Again, I am not pro-choice (unless certain circumstances), but despite how I may look like a total liberal here...I am not for paying for peoples need from cradle to gave either. Nor do I think matters like this need to be rehashed, as decisions have been made.
Comments