[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: 35449 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 (1-176) not displayed.       .       .       . #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   #194. To: Roscoe (#190) "Yes, silence imposes no restrictions." Correct. The natural state of commerce is free and open. Any regulation of that commerce is a restriction. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-04   15:50:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #195. To: Roscoe (#193) "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." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   16:03:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #196. To: ConservingFreedom (#195) The powers not delegated Commerce clause Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:17:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #197. To: Roscoe (#196) Commerce clause The power to regulate commerce among the several states is delegated - while the power to regulate that which is not commerce among the several states, but substantially affects commerce among the several states, is not. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   16:20:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #198. To: ConservingFreedom (#197) Necessary and proper Have you ever read it? Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:23:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #199. To: Roscoe (#198) Necessary and proper Relevant only upon establishing that regulating that which is not commerce among the several states, but substantially affects commerce among the several states, is both necessary and proper for regulating commerce among the several states. Feel free to so establish. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   16:29:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #200. To: ConservingFreedom (#199) Relevant only upon establishing that regulating that which is not commerce among the several states, but substantially affects commerce among the several states, is both necessary and proper Backwards. Until proven otherwise. The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:30:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #201. To: Roscoe (#200) The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions. Quote. The idea that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine the limits on Congress' authority is ludicrous even for you - and that's saying something. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   16:36:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #202. To: ConservingFreedom (#201) Quote. "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Now you quote the provision requiring Congress to "establish" an exercise of those explicit powers to your satisfaction. At least try. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:41:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #203. To: Roscoe (#202) "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." A swing and a miss by you. The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary and proper. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   16:45:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #204. To: ConservingFreedom (#203) The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary and proper. Of course it does. "Congress is empowered to regulate -- that is, to provide the law for the government of interstate commerce; to enact "all appropriate legislation" for its "protection and advancement..." Houston E. & W. Tex. Ry. Co. v. United States 234 U.S. 342 (1914) Now you quote the provision requiring Congress to "establish" an exercise of those explicit powers to your satisfaction. At least try. Don't be such a coward. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:47:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #205. To: misterwhite (#194) The natural state of commerce is free and open. "PIRACY, n. Commerce without its folly-swaddles, just as God made it." --Ambrose Bierce Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:49:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #206. To: ConservingFreedom, roscoe, Y'ALL (#203) ConservingFreedom (#203) ---- The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary and proper. Of course it does.-- roscoe The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary,proper, and/or CONSTITUTIONAL. As usual, roscoe doesn't have a clue... tpaine  posted on  2016-04-04   17:14:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #207. To: Roscoe (#204) "Congress is empowered to regulate -- that is, to provide the law for the government of interstate commerce; to enact "all appropriate legislation" for its "protection and advancement..." Houston E. & W. Tex. Ry. Co. v. United States 234 U.S. 342 (1914) No help for you there - it wasn't ruled that Congress had the power to declare whether a given law is appropriate for the protection and advancement of interstate commerce, either. Here's just one example of the Court rejecting a government claim of power under the clause: "The Government's first argument is that the individual mandate is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...] the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms." NFIB v Sebelius A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   17:28:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #208. To: Roscoe (#204) requiring Congress to "establish" an exercise of those explicit powers to your satisfaction. Yet another of your straw men - I never said a word about "to my satisfaction." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   17:29:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #209. To: ConservingFreedom (#207) it wasn't ruled that Congress had the power to declare whether a given law is appropriate to enact "all appropriate legislation" Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   17:37:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #210. To: ConservingFreedom (#208) "to my satisfaction." You have failed to identify any other party. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   17:38:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #211. To: Roscoe (#207) [CF:] Here's just one example of the Court rejecting a government claim of power under the clause: "The Government's first argument is that the individual mandate is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...] the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms." NFIB v Sebelius Which, to chew your food for you, disproves your claim that "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions" as to what was necessary and proper. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   17:41:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #212. To: ConservingFreedom (#211) disproves your claim that "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions" "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Poor you. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   17:45:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #213. To: Roscoe, Y'ALL (#209) ConservingFreedom (#207 --- it wasn't ruled that Congress had the power to declare whether a given law is appropriate to enact "all appropriate legislation" --- Roscoe To enact 'all constitutionally appropriate legislation'. tpaine  posted on  2016-04-04   17:53:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #214. To: Roscoe (#212) Cling fiercely to your moronic disinterpretations - maybe you'll fool somebody besides yourself. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   20:57:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #215. To: ConservingFreedom (#214) The powers in the constituion are delegated powers. Who else was that power delegated to in the constitution. Do you believe the constitution to be the valid basis for all law in the United States of America? A K A Stone  posted on  2016-04-04   21:02:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #216. To: A K A Stone (#215) The powers in the constituion are delegated powers. And the point of enumerating delegated powers is nullified if the delegatee gets to decide their extent. Who else was that power delegated to in the constitution. If you think judicial review is constitutionally grounded - do you? - then quite plausibly the Supreme Court has the power to determine whether a law is "necessary and proper." Do you believe the constitution to be the valid basis for all law in the United States of America? No, only of federal law - state laws exist and have their validity independent of the federal constitution (which was ratified by the states). A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   21:11:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #217. To: ConservingFreedom (#214) moronic disinterpretations Actual language of the Constitution. Of course, you Constitution-haters prefer judicial activism. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   23:13:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (218 - 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