[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: 35392 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 (1-152) not displayed.       .       .       . #153. To: SOSO (#150) So the government should make and enforce laws that prohibit actions arising from original sins? So the government be allowed to mandate the attributes and actions of parenthood and enforce consequences for failure of parents to comply with the government model and proscription of parenthood? So the government should define what actions are to be shamed and mandate that every person publically shame those actions? How Orwellian are you? It has always been, as with every law since the recorded history of man, that the Constitution meant nothing other than the enforcer of the law (in our case We The People) insist and defend that it does. The fault is not with the Constitution but with We The People. If We The People choose not to enforce the laws against slavery the practice of slavery, though technically illegal, would persist. If you contest this just look at what happened during Prohibition. As for the Pavlovian response of which you speak, that is more a consequence of brainwashing in the public schools, MSM, advertising, Hollywood and the entertainment industry, social media, and, yes, even our religious institutions. It has nothing to do with the corruption of our legal system. Watching you try to post an intelligible thought is like watching a dog trying to dance on its hind legs. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:40:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #154. To: Roscoe (#148) Without a substantial effect restriction, there's no restriction at all. What are you babbling about? Even the Wickard ruling acknowledged previous narrower restrictions: "questions of the power of Congress are not to be decided by reference to any formula which would give controlling force to nomenclature such as 'production' and 'indirect' and foreclose consideration of the actual effects of the activity in question upon interstate commerce. [...] But 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   14:41:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #155. To: misterwhite (#149) (Edited) So allowing each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have had no effect on the interstate commerce of wheat? Straw man. Each farmer producing wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:42:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #156. To: ConservingFreedom (#154) it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce You're running out of feet to shoot. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:43:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #157. To: ConservingFreedom (#155) Each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce. You've never read the case, have you? Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:43:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #158. To: misterwhite (#152) Beat me by 22 seconds. Yay me! They hate the Constitution and want to insert sub silentio restrictions in it. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   14:45:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #159. To: ConservingFreedom (#155) "Each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce." Didn't say that. The ruling was that it would have an effect on interstate commerce. Producing their own means they don't purchase wheat interstate. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   14:46:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #160. To: Roscoe (#156) You'll never run out of idiocies to spew. I never disagreed that Wickard so ruled. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   14:47:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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         .       .       . Comments (194 - 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