SoCal Deek

Now what? You realize that same point can be used as an ANTI-abortion argument. For example, should a woman have complete control over whether a man's baby is destroyed? Don't hurt yourself with all this high-level moral philosophy stuff. Your sweet spot is anti-Trump memes. Bye Bye

Geeez....there are trigger bills are both sides of the issue, depending on what State you live in! Many, if not all, of those bills will almost surely be looked at again. Some will survive and some will not. You are clearly on side of access to abortion services. I'm not going to take that away from you. Make your case in whichever State you live in....or move. It's the American process.

Because NOBODY is talking about a woman's body but you and your friends on the Left. Can you guess which body we ARE talking about? See if you can. Think for a second. You can do it. I know you can!

Geeeez....let me catch you up here. The Supreme Court would not be banning abortion. That's not their job. If the leaked opinion is true and correct it's an example of the Court understanding their role in American system of government and correcting their previous mistake. You may not like it but I think we should leave it up to the Court to decide what they want to spend their time on.

Fascinating utter lack of logic...as is to be expected.

Keep digging "bro". You're making some solid arguments here today. (sarcasm)

So in the Vice President's view of the world....you can take your grandmother down to the basement and kill her, so long as you do it in private. Sure...that makes sense. How does it go again Kamala: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Privacy? No, that's not it.

The GOP is in favor of letting the State decide the issue....or what most people call DEMOCRACY! Can you post a childish cartoon that looks like that?

So the question is, and I'm certainly not saying that I know, is whether he was instructed to do that, or did he do it on his own.

Close. The concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were always preceded by the premise that all men are created equal. But to make that work, they had to convince themselves that blacks were not fully human. The exact same thing applies today. In order to convince themselves that life is 'take-able' the Left has had to convince itself that the forming baby is also not fully human. Same problem...different century. I am literally SHOCKED that Tibs (who's extremely sensitive to the slavery issue) cannot see the connection.

I don't know what that means...but I'll defend your right to say it. 👍

No doubt....but to my way of thinking, just about anything would be better than the strategy they chose to employ. As I said earlier these same type of strategies are used throughout sports to 'shorten' the game. I was very disappointed that they didn't try any of them.

"Teams can do it once in a given game. If they do it twice, officials are expected to declare the situation to be a palpably unfair act, with a 15-yard penalty and restoration of the lost time on the clock." How many times do you think they'd have needed to do it with only 13 seconds on the clock? The point is to not be blatant about it.

What rule prevented them from doing it? The game doesn't end. You are trying to burn clock.

It's been said over and over and over again. You simply hold the WRs at the line of scrimmage, take the five yard penalty, and the clock runs out. It's not complicated. In the NBA they do it in the final minute of almost every single game.

The baby is NOT her body!

I'm not the least bit intrigued to go to any of those international games...but...I've said it before, if the Bills are scheduled in a future year (and you can possibly afford to go) you will not regret the experience. We had a blast in London!

What I learned from this...if any of it is true...is that the blame lies squarely on the coaching staff. They coached scared! Trust me, the players aren't calling the defense. The coaches are.

Put the alcohol down Tibs. You’re slurring your posts now. Who exactly was the slaveholder? Me? Or the founding fathers? And what does it have to do with the right to life?

Quote the Bible? No.....why? Did you read ANYTHING that I wrote. The right to life is described an unalienable. How much clearer did you want the authors to be? They already said that they hold these truths to be self-evident. It was there way of saying.....DUH, NO *****!

Now what? My gosh, you have a really odd way of looking at our country.

Correct, I don't have the answer. But I shouldn't. That's what the various legislative bills in each state would determine. It's no different from my previous email when I mentioned that states used to have (and maybe some still do) different drinking ages. Each state will make their own determination. The Declaration, and its sister document, the Constitution don't reference the Bible. They refer to a Creator. What do you believe that term refers to? Please don't tell me you've found yet another rabbit hole to go down.

In a word.....Yikes! So in your view, Liberty is a definite "yes", but Life is a "no". Got it.

So we agree here. At some point the country realized that it needed to clarify and correct that Liberty applied to all people….including blacks. Now, it’s apparently time to make another clarification and reinforce that Life applies to every life, including the yet born.

By the way Tibs….between the Declaration of Independence and the writing of the Constitution, which disappeared? The Creator? The self evident truths? The unalienable rights? Or is it your premise that the framers were going to include Life but it didn’t make the final cut? 😉