792 replies to this topic

[Lysistrata]

ROFLMAO. That’s your argument? That I’m not a citizen of US. That’s not an argument, that’s silliness.

It means it's none of your concern. It does not affect you, and your opinion doesn't matter. Globalists want to believe that everything is under their scrutiny, and everything must abide by their decree. Except when it's just too hard to deal with... like China and Muslims.

The body of a woman belongs to her, the Federal government should protect that as a human right if a woman’s liberty to ‘own’ her bods is threatened. Pure and simple, and the only decent and civilised thing to do.

Add this together with $5.00 American and you can buy yourself a gallon of gas.

 

Back to the Coronavirus... it's dead but they still want to bring it back. On another note... Ray Liotta died suddenly in his sleep at 67. Founding member of Depeche Mode, Andy Fletcher, dies suddenly at 60. Were they fully vaccinated?

[onbekende]

This is not an issue of abortion... if a woman can get one or when. This is an issue of how, or who, has the power to regulate it.
Here in the USA, we have a constitution designed to limit the power of the Federal Government. Power to the Federal Government is allowed to occur by consent of the states. What is not specifically given to the Federal Government, remains with the states.

The power to regulate abortion has never been offered to the Federal Government. It's none of their business. Pretty damn simple.

.
Once again, not everything is written down explicitly. Might want to go re-read about Roe and what those radicals opinion was that it deserved constitutional protection in the first place.

 

Then wonder why Alito is bringing up a 16th century British witch hunter to talk it down...
.

 

You do know that the US has Common Law right? And one of its tenents being "Stare decisis", or precedents in non-legal linga.

If you wanna go for a "everything written down" franchise, aka Civil Law, you gonna have to europeanise >_>

Betsy sssssssh, dont give them ideas, it’s bother taking a state law exam already as is… what with all the codes you need to memorise for that one occasion >.< Don’t be mean now

.
Pffft, you haven't even seen out taxes yet, now there are some codes for ya
.

 

ROFLMAO. That’s your argument? That I’m not a citizen of US. That’s not an argument, that’s silliness.

It means it's none of your concern. It does not affect you, and your opinion doesn't matter. Globalists want to believe that everything is under their scrutiny, and everything must abide by their decree. Except when it's just too hard to deal with... like China and Muslims.

.
Yeah it doesn't directly inpact us, and as such our points are clearly only opinion or viewpoints but don't actually matter.
 
wait a minute, since when do you got a uterus? Or don't you? So why you matter on this? Why do all those men's opinion matter? he? HA! GOTCHA!
 
also, says nation that keeps exporting "freedom" when it finds oil >_>
.

Back to the Coronavirus... it's dead but they still want to bring it back. On another note... Ray Liotta died suddenly in his sleep at 67. Founding member of Depeche Mode, Andy Fletcher, dies suddenly at 60. Were they fully vaccinated?

.

nobody wants to bring it back, unless the fools who want to keep yelling about it being not present in the first place.

 

average lifespan in US is ~79, bit lower for males. surprised people die now?

[Lysistrata]

Once again, not everything is written down explicitly.

Yes, it is. Everything is written, and when it's not there, it's not there. That means the U.S. Congress has no power over it. If they want the power, they must go to the voters to gain it... then, and only then, it gets written.

Yeah it doesn't directly inpact us

I have heard abortion law in Europe is much tougher than ours.

wait a minute, since when do you got a uterus? Or don't you? So why you matter on this?

I have said this before, but memory here must fade in time. I am a pro-choice Republican. I have no problem with abortion by choice. I believe a limit of the first trimester should be required, and the individuals responsible must pay for it. This issue is entirely about who in government has the power to regulate abortion. Constitutionally, it's in State Law where it should have always been. If the U.S. Congress wishes to have that power, they must obtain an amendment to the Constitution.

nobody wants to bring it back

Yes, they do. The Great Reset has not happened yet. Schools have to get back to work. Not enough people were stupid enough to line up for gene therapy. Only idiots are still wearing masks. They have too much trouble rigging elections. They are losing the control over the population that they gained from instilling fear. They are scared to death that no one cares about their virus any longer.

[onbekende]

 

Once again, not everything is written down explicitly.

Yes, it is. Everything is written, and when it's not there, it's not there. That means the U.S. Congress has no power over it. If they want the power, they must go to the voters to gain it... then, and only then, it gets written.

.
The only reason I aint listing what the Federal side all does but isn't explicitly written down is cause it is so freaking long, cause writing everything down is FREAKING LONG.

 

A heck of alot are all inferred from the language of the Constitution, one of the usual suspects being the Commerce Clause. You folks have your federal ban on drugs from the Commerce Clause, go figure that one out...
.

 

Yeah it doesn't directly inpact us

I have heard abortion law in Europe is much tougher than ours.

.
Besides the falseness of said claim, Europe is actual alot of seperate powers/nations with different nationalities. One of the points of Roe was that abortion rights were constitutional and as such lifted above state powers. Europe, or rather I'd guess you mean the EU, hasn't made such a ruling yet so such a distinction is moot.
.

 

wait a minute, since when do you got a uterus? Or don't you? So why you matter on this?

I have said this before, but memory here must fade in time. I am a pro-choice Republican. I have no problem with abortion by choice. I believe a limit of the first trimester should be required, and the individuals responsible must pay for it. This issue is entirely about who in government has the power to regulate abortion. Constitutionally, it's in State Law where it should have always been. If the U.S. Congress wishes to have that power, they must obtain an amendment to the Constitution.

.
The case brought forward was once again a State attempting to violate precedent in which abortion was "constituionalized". Other side of the coin could have seen SCOTUS once again striking down such attempts but now that you have an ideological handpicked court filled with pre-disposed people clearly stating they are "pro-life", you get a leaked and flimsy drawn up note using a 16th century brit to justify striking said precedent.

 

btw, Roe's historical retrospective was far wider and more in depth then Alito's "I found a witchhunter who made my point for me" malarky.
.

 

nobody wants to bring it back

Yes, they do. The Great Reset has not happened yet. Schools have to get back to work. Not enough people were stupid enough to line up for gene therapy. Only idiots are still wearing masks. They have too much trouble rigging elections. They are losing the control over the population that they gained from instilling fear. They are scared to death that no one cares about their virus any longer.

.

Party of Regression talks about fear for a "great reset"?

Party of mis-education wants school to be open?

Party of mis-information still has no clue what gene-therapy is?

Party of mis-usage wants surgeons to stop wearing masks?

Party of president that phoned state's leadership to "find votes" wants fair elections?

Party of 6th jan insurrection wants to stop sowing fear?

Party of "I can't stop talking about this to keep you from talking about it"?

 

 

yeah... sure...

[Lysistrata]

cause writing everything down is FREAKING LONG.

The states to ratify a constitutional amendment to make abortion a constitutional right would be shorter, and take less time, than the majority of your posts here on this forum. The reason they don't do it is because it will fail.

 

"It's not written down so therefore abortion is legal in all states" is not the way we do things in the USA.

A heck of alot are all inferred from the language of the Constitution, one of the usual suspects being the Commerce Clause.

The Commerce Clause deals with anything involving money between states... that's why they are fighting over it all the time.

Europe is actual alot of seperate powers/nations with different nationalities.

So, what you're saying is each individual country has their own abortion laws. The EU hasn't been stupid enough to try to make them all do it their way... am I right?

The case brought forward was once again a State attempting to violate precedent in which abortion was "constituionalized".

Wrong. The case brought forward was once again a state rightfully regulating abortion in their state after activist judges attempted to "constitutionalize" abortion and falsely declaring it as precedent. Abortion is not, and never has been, a Constitutional Right.

Party of Regression talks about fear for a "great reset"?

We didn't make up "The Great Reset", and we didn't lay out the agenda. Don't confuse fear with non-compliance. We will not conform. Socialism is not our idea of a good life, and whenever you're ready to fight over it, we will accommodate.

[MWilson]

 

cause writing everything down is FREAKING LONG.

The states to ratify a constitutional amendment to make abortion a constitutional right would be shorter, and take less time, than the majority of your posts here on this forum. The reason they don't do it is because it will fail.

 

"It's not written down so therefore abortion is legal in all states" is not the way we do things in the USA.

A heck of alot are all inferred from the language of the Constitution, one of the usual suspects being the Commerce Clause.

The Commerce Clause deals with anything involving money between states... that's why they are fighting over it all the time.

Europe is actual alot of seperate powers/nations with different nationalities.

So, what you're saying is each individual country has their own abortion laws. The EU hasn't been stupid enough to try to make them all do it their way... am I right?

The case brought forward was once again a State attempting to violate precedent in which abortion was "constituionalized".

Wrong. The case brought forward was once again a state rightfully regulating abortion in their state after activist judges attempted to "constitutionalize" abortion and falsely declaring it as precedent. Abortion is not, and never has been, a Constitutional Right.

Party of Regression talks about fear for a "great reset"?

We didn't make up "The Great Reset", and we didn't lay out the agenda. Don't confuse fear with non-compliance. We will not conform. Socialism is not our idea of a good life, and whenever you're ready to fight over it, we will accommodate.

 

It's hilarious to me that you people think a civil war in the US will possibly have a good outcome for anybody

[Lysistrata]

It's hilarious to me that you people think a civil war in the US will possibly have a good outcome for anybody

Let's unpack this a bit. I tell a Belgian Socialist that we will fight against their agenda, and somehow you come up with the notion that I'm inciting a civil war in the US. I heard today that gas is up to $10 a gallon in California. What do you think is going to happen?

[onbekende]

 

cause writing everything down is FREAKING LONG.

The states to ratify a constitutional amendment to make abortion a constitutional right would be shorter, and take less time, than the majority of your posts here on this forum. The reason they don't do it is because it will fail.

"It's not written down so therefore abortion is legal in all states" is not the way we do things in the USA.

.

With a 3/4th States in favor for anything to be added as an amendment, I doubt you guys could even add a "the sky is blue" line...

 

You do a hell of alot of things in the US that way, as i said before: driving a car.
.

 

A heck of alot are all inferred from the language of the Constitution, one of the usual suspects being the Commerce Clause.

The Commerce Clause deals with anything involving money between states... that's why they are fighting over it all the time.

.
And I stated that the Commerce Clause is used for a federal ban on substances/drugs. Explaining how that has anything to do with money betwee states is farther from abortion being a woman's freedom over her own body. I am using this to show that the Constitution, as concise it might be, can get inferred into alot more just cause.
.

 

Europe is actual alot of seperate powers/nations with different nationalities.

So, what you're saying is each individual country has their own abortion laws. The EU hasn't been stupid enough to try to make them all do it their way... am I right?

.
Yeah, You have noticed that the EU isn't a federal governing body superseding member states on every aspect. Grats?

 

Did I perhaps break on of your fever dreams about EU's communist mega state stranglehold on its members? Did I, once again, type out an obvious folly in your understanding anything foreign?

 

You give me flak for "butting in" on USA stuff, but atleast I understand (or am willing to look it up first) about its workings far better then your shallow fever dream fueled malarky you scooped up from Fox News about anything foreign.
.

 

The case brought forward was once again a State attempting to violate precedent in which abortion was "constituionalized".

Wrong. The case brought forward was once again a state rightfully regulating abortion in their state after activist judges attempted to "constitutionalize" abortion and falsely declaring it as precedent. Abortion is not, and never has been, a Constitutional Right.

.
And we are once again declaring a majority Republican (with 3 Nixon SCOTUS judges in majority) as activists. This word has thus lost its meaning by your usage. Yet another one that gets twisted beyond definition by the book-banning GOP ongoing crusade against knowledge (and critical thinking).

 

You got like virtual no rights in your Constitution if you want to be a complete textualist thumper, then again I fear the thumping only applies when it is something you dislike (or get told to dislike tbf).
.

 

Party of Regression talks about fear for a "great reset"?

We didn't make up "The Great Reset", and we didn't lay out the agenda. Don't confuse fear with non-compliance. We will not conform. Socialism is not our idea of a good life, and whenever you're ready to fight over it, we will accommodate.

.

"The great reset" is a damn boogeyman conjured up to get up in arms against it, just as much as the left manifests every richt winner as a uncurable rascist. Neither is true but both are a great way to keep partisanship high and the hate flowing. Grow up.

 

You guys have plenty of "socialism" in your life, you just choose not to actual name it so to not offend your own insecurities. The only fighting I tend to do is with myself wheter I should once again attempt to make you see something beyond your pit of wallows.
.

 

It's hilarious to me that you people think a civil war in the US will possibly have a good outcome for anybody

Let's unpack this a bit. I tell a Belgian Socialist that we will fight against their agenda, and somehow you come up with the notion that I'm inciting a civil war in the US. I heard today that gas is up to $10 a gallon in California. What do you think is going to happen?

.

Lol me and my agenda. I clearly am a foot soldier for this "socialism" and am planning a grand indoctrination of the American people, all from my comfy chair while typing up stuff on a forum thread frequented by just me and you.

 

Keep checking for the guy up in arms by walking past a mirror will ya.

[Lysistrata]

With a 3/4th States in favor for anything to be added as an amendment, I doubt you guys could even add a "the sky is blue" line...

Wow... you just figured it out. It's intended to be that way. The Constitution was written and ratified to limit the power of the Federal Government over the states. If 3/4ths don't want it, that means they don't want the Federal Government writing those laws. They will retain that power for themselves, and they don't get to just do it anyway... the SCOTUS will stop them... and there is no angry mob, no unelected or appointed panel, or simple 51% majority that can override it. If they don't like how they do things in California... they can move to another state. It's damn easy... I know because I did it myself.

And I stated that the Commerce Clause is used for a federal ban on substances/drugs.

The Commerce Clause is used for a lot of things... commerce between states is the business of the Federal Government... it's in the Constitution. Abortion is not the business of the Federal Government... it's not in the Constitution.

And we are once again declaring a majority Republican (with 3 Nixon SCOTUS judges in majority) as activists.

Presidents nominate... the Senate confirms. We can only hope that they don't screw it all up with their own personal beliefs.

The SCOTUS was very non-political until Robert Bork was crucified by a Democrat Senate. Since then, it's been a circus.

[onbekende]

 

With a 3/4th States in favor for anything to be added as an amendment, I doubt you guys could even add a "the sky is blue" line...

Wow... you just figured it out. It's intended to be that way. The Constitution was written and ratified to limit the power of the Federal Government over the states. If 3/4ths don't want it, that means they don't want the Federal Government writing those laws. They will retain that power for themselves, and they don't get to just do it anyway... the SCOTUS will stop them... and there is no angry mob, no unelected or appointed panel, or simple 51% majority that can override it. If they don't like how they do things in California... they can move to another state. It's damn easy... I know because I did it myself.

.

Once again, Roe was viewed as settled law, running close to 50 years almost currently. We can flip the argument and say that 3/4th of the USA needs to vote on lifting it from its Constitutional protection as deemed in Roe.

 

As for the state moving, it hardly is "easy" for the entire population, nor would I find running a country where anything can be fixed by "move a thousand miles" like a very good thing. Differences and regionality can be fine, but some federal guidelines to make any place liveable while having ideological differences seem like an actual nation-building idea...
.

 

And I stated that the Commerce Clause is used for a federal ban on substances/drugs.

The Commerce Clause is used for a lot of things... commerce between states is the business of the Federal Government... it's in the Constitution. Abortion is not the business of the Federal Government... it's not in the Constitution.

.
Points, they keep flying over you.

 

Commerce Clause means nothing to illegal substances, yet it is SCOTUS view that they are grounded by it and thus permit the federal government ban on substances/drugs.

 

I am merely showing that SCOTUS does "infer rights" not explicitly written down. Heck they even added an amendment to ban liquor in your history but now you deem it fine that the feds ban meth? Atleast try to be consistant will ya.
.

 

And we are once again declaring a majority Republican (with 3 Nixon SCOTUS judges in majority) as activists.

Presidents nominate... the Senate confirms. We can only hope that they don't screw it all up with their own personal beliefs.
The SCOTUS was very non-political until Robert Bork was crucified by a Democrat Senate. Since then, it's been a circus.

.

personal beliefs he? the current attempt at Roe is veiled in "state rights" but is based (and funded) by religious groupings. Go decry that foolery will ya.

 

As for Bork, the guy orchestrated the Saturday Night Massacre on behead of soon-to-be-impeached Nixon. Senate tossed him cause the fellow was the starting point of "executive supremacy" that has plagued GOP Presidency ever since (but if a Dem POTUS goes solo-slim, het gets sidelined immedeatly).

[Lysistrata]

Once again, Roe was viewed as settled law

That line of thinking obviously didn't pan out, but they can keep crying about it.

[Lysistrata]

Now, after two years, the WHO says that the virus came from the Wuhan Lab.

The idiots that didn't know that already can always avoid responsibility by claiming mental health problems.

WHO chief 'does believe Covid was leaked from a lab’ (msn.com)

W.H.O. Admits Lockdowns Resulted in Dramatic Rise in Mental Health Problems – [your]NEWS (yournews.com)

[onbekende]

ooo an anonymous source in a Murdoch paper, thought you disliked such smoke?

 

Hey, atleast you wanna speak about mental health now yes? And any thoughts on people's mental health due to all the deaths it caused, let alone continued health issues?