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

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past? Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues [FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin 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: 35447 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 Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 129. #1. To: All, A K A Stone, misterwhite, Roscoe, SOSO, ConservingFreedom, sneakypete, tomder55, redleghunter, GarySpFc, Fred Mertz, buckeroo, et al (#0) ping Tooconservative  posted on  2016-04-02   9:48:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: TooConservative, All, A K A Stone, misterwhite, Roscoe, ConservingFreedom, sneakypete, tomder55, redleghunter, GarySpFc, Fred Mertz, buckeroo, (#1) "I would've preferred states' rights," he added. "I think it would've been better if it were up to the states............." The most stupid, illogical, immoral position to have. Either an unborn fetus is or is not a human being, a person entitled to every protection and right under the U.S. Constitution as is any other person. To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground. SOSO  posted on  2016-04-02   11:32:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: SOSO (#16) "To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground." That's the way it was for 200 years until an activist court looked into a penumbra of an emanation and found the right to murder an unborn child in the U.S. Constitution. Returning the issue to the states allows each state to make that determination. If you don't like the decision reached by your state, at least you can move. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-02   11:52:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: misterwhite (#18) "To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground." That's the way it was for 200 years until an activist court looked into a penumbra of an emanation and found the right to murder an unborn child in the U.S. Constitution. There was no 14th Amendment 200 years ago. And abortion was illegal in the U.S. through the mid-1880s. If you are going to debate the issue at least bone up on the facts. SOSO  posted on  2016-04-02   12:57:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: SOSO (#25) "There was no 14th Amendment 200 years ago." The U.S. Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. They then used the 14th amendment to apply that right to the states. "And abortion was illegal in the U.S. through the mid-1880s. If you are going to debate the issue at least bone up on the facts." It was illegal at the state level. I said it was a state-level decision for 200 years. So what's your problem? misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-02   13:13:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: misterwhite (#33) It was illegal at the state level. I said it was a state-level decision for 200 years. So what's your problem? The problem is that it was not at all illegal at the state level 200 years ago. Do your homework. I even gave you a link which you obviously didn't read. Abortion was perfectly legal in ancient Rome and Greece and in England up to 1803 or so. It wasn't until the mid-;ate 1880s that it wasn't legal in the U.S. As for SCOTUS, it claimed that a fetus was not a person as applied under Amendment 14th and that right of privacy of the women was superior to any right of the fetus thereunder. SOSO  posted on  2016-04-02   13:19:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: SOSO (#37) "The problem is that it was not at all illegal at the state level 200 years ago." I never said anything about the legality or illegality of abortions. You said "To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections ..." and I responded that there WERE different determinations at the state level for 200 years. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-02   13:53:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: misterwhite (#46) You said "To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections ..." and I responded that there WERE different determinations at the state level for 200 years. Document that. You can't because it is likely not true. No state prohibited abortion prior to the mid-1800s or so. More to your point, which is a valid one, I have tried to find authoritative sources as to what is now called fetal rights were legislated either at the federal or state level in the early 1800s and prior times in colonial America with not much success. So I concede that absent finding such documentation that your position is quite plausible but note the following: In 1821, Connecticut became the first state to enact abortion legislation for women who had reached quickening, but abortion before quickening did not become illegal in Connecticut until 1860. New York, in 1828, adopted legislation that was followed by many states between 1830 and 1850; most of these statutes dealt more severely with abortion after quickening than before. So it seems that whatever fetal rights that may have existed in law in the U.S. were based on the notion of quickening. Further, "These anti-abortion laws were enacted for three basic reasons: a Victorian obsession to discourage illicit sexual conduct; a health concern, because at the time abortions were dangerous; and a newfound interest in protecting prenatal life. By the end of the 1950s, however, a large majority of states had banned all abortion except for instances where the woman's life was in danger." So the evidence that I have be able to find suggests that interest in protecting prenatal life was not prevalent prior to the mid-late 1800s. Another reference states that, "at the turn of the nineteenth century most people in Western Europe and the United States did not believe human life was present until a pregnant woman felt the first fetal movements, a phenomenon referred to as quickening. In the United States and England, abortion was legal in the early 1800s as long as it was performed prior to quickening. During later stages of pregnancy, abortion was a crime, but distinct from other forms of murder and punished less harshly." But for the sake of discussion let's assume that you are correct. Doesn't a state of affairs where there are 50 different legal determinations of what a fetus is and what rights it may have seem absurd to you? At the minimum each state needs to adhere to Federal law as to the constitutional rights of the unborn fetus. A state may go beyond that but cannot diminish the constitutional rights of a fetus. For example, in 2007 SCOTUS upheld a nationwide ban on partial birth abortion, a form of late term abortion. "In its April 2007 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and, in the process, set a major jurisprudential precedent. The federal law includes no health exception. Moreover, although the law does not include a precise medical definition of what is banned, the Court found the federal law’s definition sufficient to pass constitutional muster. The federal law is currently in effect and the Supreme Court precedent may bring consistency to state laws, which are still important as they allow for state and local law enforcement and, potentially, stiffer penalties. •32 states have enacted bans on “partial-birth” abortions. ◦13 state laws have been specifically blocked by a court and are not in effect. ◦ 19 state laws are in effect; 7 of them remain unchallenged but, because of the broad nature of their language, are presumably unenforceable under the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down a Nebraska ban. •The definition of what constitutes a “partial-birth” abortion varies from state to state. ◦11 states laws mirror the definition in federal law, with 10 of these laws in effect. ◦ 21 state laws have definitions not patterned after federal law, but only 9 of these laws are in effect. •All 32 state laws include some sort of exception. ◦3 states have bans that include a health exception. ◦1 state includes a broad health exception that allows a physician to perform a “partial-birth” abortion if necessary to protect against physical or mental impairment of the pregnant woman. ◦ 2 states include a narrow health exception that allows a physician to perform a “partial-birth” abortion to protect only against bodily harm to the pregnant woman. ◦ 29 states have bans that allow for an exception only when a woman’s life is in danger, with 16 of these bans in effect." IMO this is an unacceptable state of law that does not serve the character of our country well. As things stand what SCOTUS has foisted on us is a disgraceful abdication of judicial duty, as well as logic. RvW was an expedient construct for political reasons. The notion of viability is a totally illogical sham. So I will stand by my position that there were not 50 determinations as to the legal status of an unborn fetus for 200 years and there should not be. Human life is human life no matter where it happens to reside at the moment and the legal protections that life has should not be location dependent. I will go further, whether an unborn fetus is just a thing that can be discarded at will or human life with protected rights should not be at the sole discretion of the pregnant woman. Nor should be at the independent sole discretion of 50 different states. SOSO  posted on  2016-04-02   15:37:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: SOSO (#56) "No state prohibited abortion prior to the mid-1800s or so." I told you before. I don't care. My entire point was that the states had the power to ban or permit abortions until 1973. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-02   16:42:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: misterwhite (#61) My entire point was that the states had the power to ban or permit abortions until 1973. That was not at all clear. But it is a mute point as up to well into the 1800s no so state had laws prohibiting abortion prior to quickening. My original statement stands, i.e. - to have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground. Do you agree or not? SOSO  posted on  2016-04-02   18:15:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: SOSO (#63) "My original statement stands, i.e. - to have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground. Do you agree or not?" I disagree. For three reasons. 1) If abortion is murder, then that's a state crime, not a federal crime. 2) The Founding Fathers established a federal republic and it was their intent that each state have it's own constitution and laws. 3) Prior to 1973, each state had laws on abortion -- either permitting it or prohibiting it. We did it before and it worked. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-02   18:31:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: misterwhite (#65) 1) If abortion is murder, then that's a state crime, not a federal crime Not true in all cases. There is a federal crime of murder. "2) The Founding Fathers established a federal republic and it was their intent that each state have it's own constitution and laws." True but only as long as any of such law did not trump the Constitutional rights that would restrict same. In other words, sate law could not deprive a citizen or a person as the case may be of their Consitutional rights. "3) Prior to 1973, each state had laws on abortion -- either permitting it or prohibiting it. We did it before and it worked. All I will point out to you is the same can be said about slavery - enough said I trust. SOSO  posted on  2016-04-02   19:16:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #82. To: SOSO (#67) "Not true in all cases. There is a federal crime of murder." Thank you for pointing out that .0001% of murders are federal crimes. It totally destroys the point I was trying to make. I give up. You win. "True but only as long as any of such law did not trump the Constitutional rights that would restrict same. In other words, sate law could not deprive a citizen or a person as the case may be of their Consitutional rights." False. It wasn't until the Warren court in the 1960's that the Bill of Rights began limiting state laws (via the 14th amendment). "All I will point out to you is the same can be said about slavery" I fail to see the connection, but thanks for the history lesson. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   11:10:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: misterwhite (#82) It wasn't until the Warren court in the 1960's that the Bill of Rights began limiting state laws (via the 14th amendment). Not that it will matter to you but the 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights. ""All I will point out to you is the same can be said about slavery" I fail to see the connection, but thanks for the history lesson." I'm not too surprised. Just because something in the past was tolerated or codified in law or was comfortable etc. etc. etc. doesn't make it right, much less a rational basis to continue it. SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   11:41:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #86. To: SOSO (#83) "Not that it will matter to you but the 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights.' The Due Process clause of the 14th amendment was used by the U.S. Supreme Court to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Go here (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html) and read under "Bar to Federal Action" and "Incorporation". It's short and to the point. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   11:53:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #88. To: misterwhite (#86) Thanks for the link. There is something inherently wrong about the position that from the git-go the states can ignore the Bill of Rights and thereby deny those rights to anyone within the state jurisdiction. The position of Hamilton and Madison re: the the Alien and Sedition Act: "As to the Bill of Rights being a bar to federal acts, the Bill took some knocks in the first years of the new nation. The 1798 Alien and Sedition Act, for example, made nationals of countries the United States was at war with subject to summary arrest, and also made "false, scandalous and malicious" writings about the government a crime, with the burden of proof placed squarely on the shoulders of the defendant rather than the state. Madison and Thomas Jefferson were both adamantly opposed to the Act, and said that being unconstitutional, states were free to ignore (or nullify) the law. The Act, repealed in 1801, was never ruled unconstitutional." What then is the value of a constitutional law if any state can ignore it at will? Are you claiming that since the end of the Civil War and the 1960s any state could have reinstituted slavery or denied women the right to vote? There is an awful lot of nuance that is ignored in your reference. SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   12:23:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #90. To: SOSO (#88) "What then is the value of a constitutional law if any state can ignore it at will?" I believe you mean to ask, "What then is the value of a constitutional federal law if any state can ignore it at will?" The value is that the federal government cannot violate it. The states, however, are not required to enforce it (which is what Madison and Jeffersom were alluding to). "any state could have reinstituted slavery or denied women the right to vote?" Those issues are not in the Bill of Rights. I was only referring to the Bill of Rights. My link only addressed the Bill of Rights. Let's stay with that, shall we? If you read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, you see that they were written as a limitation of the federal governent only. No such limitation applies to other amendments. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   12:44:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #104. To: misterwhite (#90) "any state could have reinstituted slavery or denied women the right to vote?" Those issues are not in the Bill of Rights. I Correct, slavery is embedded in the body of the original text of the Constitution which passed by the convention and sent to the states for ratification. The Bill of Rights was added after the fact of the convention and was not part of the original document. "Article. I. Section. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." Do you contest that at in and around the late 1780s when the Constitution was passed and ratified that black slaves were not considered citizens of the U.S.? "Article 1 Section. 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." Are you contesting that the Articles of the U.S. Consitution permitted the continued importation of slaves through 1806? "Article III. Section. 2. The judicial Power {off SCOTUS} shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." What do you think Section 9 means? It seems clear that the judicial power of SCOTUS extends well into the workings of the respective laws of the states. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to place specific limits on government power, not just federal government power. Here's the full text of the BoR "The Bill of Rights – Full Text Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X 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." Only Amendments 1, 7, 9 and 10 are solely addressed to the Federal government. For example, it seems pretty clear in Amendment 5 prohibits a state from waiving habeas corpus or waive protection against double jeopardy. And it seems pretty clear that Amendment 6 prohibits a state from denying the accused of the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. All of these protections against a state denying these rights to a person were in effect when the BoR was ratified. They didn't have to wait until the 14th Amendment was ratified. SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   15:09:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #110. To: SOSO (#104) Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion? rlk  posted on  2016-04-03   16:19:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #115. To: rlk (#110) Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion? Please tell us. SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   23:16:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   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   Untrace   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. SOSO  posted on  2016-04-04   0:39:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   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   Untrace   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"? ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   11:15:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   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   Untrace   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? ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   12:17:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   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   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 129. #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? ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04 13:12:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 129. 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