Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 6/24/2022 at 4:20 PM, Gene Frenkle said:

When will they bring back slavery?

Statements like this, while meant for dramatic effect are just a joke or display ignorance of the Constitution and the role played by the Supreme Court in our Republic and its three branches of government.  But the question is simply preposterous.  The court can't bring back slavery because there is a Constitutional amendment that prohibits and abolishes slavery.  The 13th Amendment. If abortion proponents want Constitutional protection, then introduce an amendment in Congress, pass the amendment, and send it to the States for consideration and ratification.  That's how our democracy works.  You know.  The one I see so many posts saying they revere and cherish.  As long as they get their way I guess.  So follow the rules and deal with it.  If you can't pass the Amendment in Congress and get enough States to ratify the Amendment, then that's just democracy in action.  

 

 

  • Eyeroll 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Statements like this, while meant for dramatic effect are just a joke or display ignorance of the Constitution and the role played by the Supreme Court in our Republic and its three branches of government.  But the question is simply preposterous.  The court can't bring back slavery because there is a Constitutional amendment that prohibits and abolishes slavery.  The 13th Amendment. If abortion proponents want Constitutional protection, then introduce an amendment in Congress, pass the amendment, and send it to the States for consideration and ratification.  That's how our democracy works.  You know.  The one I see so many posts saying they revere and cherish.  As long as they get their way I guess.  So follow the rules and deal with it.  If you can't pass the Amendment in Congress and get enough States to ratify the Amendment, then that's just democracy in action.  

 

 

 

Irony is dead.......

 

af.thumb.JPG.68cdf6aa8e6275d8897957a85cb07b92.JPGsdf.thumb.JPG.402c9abe192de31083e74bf903da8681.JPGimage.thumb.jpeg.b1a826db1836357459ef12fa8db5f30b.jpegimage.thumb.jpeg.5de94f44d858004ec416f82e6df0e15b.jpegimage.thumb.jpeg.9536ba4eedaf7feac19fd39e9915b859.jpeg

Posted
10 hours ago, LeviF said:


“This is about the future of our children” is hilariously mealy-mouthed for someone who thinks children should be able to be cut up alive and sucked out of the womb on any whim of the “mother.”


Bought? Let’s say he isn’t arguing in good faith, which I’m not conceding. What makes you think he’s bought vs. out for revenge for the constant hit pieces and threats against his wife? 

 

Because it's clear he has a list to complete. I'm wondering how far back he intends to turn the clock. When was rape legal?

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Statements like this, while meant for dramatic effect are just a joke or display ignorance of the Constitution and the role played by the Supreme Court in our Republic and its three branches of government.  But the question is simply preposterous.  The court can't bring back slavery because there is a Constitutional amendment that prohibits and abolishes slavery.  The 13th Amendment. If abortion proponents want Constitutional protection, then introduce an amendment in Congress, pass the amendment, and send it to the States for consideration and ratification.  That's how our democracy works.  You know.  The one I see so many posts saying they revere and cherish.  As long as they get their way I guess.  So follow the rules and deal with it.  If you can't pass the Amendment in Congress and get enough States to ratify the Amendment, then that's just democracy in action.  

 

 

 

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.

Posted
2 hours ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Because it's clear he has a list to complete. I'm wondering how far back he intends to turn the clock. When was rape legal?

 

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.

“I’m just acting ######ed to make fun of you!”

Posted
On 6/26/2022 at 9:25 AM, Tiberius said:

Do you think the court will strike down the new gun laws? 


The court should strike down all gun laws. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, LeviF said:


The court should strike down all gun laws. 

They probably will. Murder incorporated, i.e. the Pro-Life court is all about misery and chaos 

 

If the country is in chaos it's easier to create a dictatorship 

Posted
10 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

Omg!!!!!!   Noooooooooooooooo!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 Justices continue to show what absolute trash they are.   

 

At least those three justices understood what the facts of the case were instead of just making them up to get to their desired outcome...

  • Dislike 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

They probably will. Murder incorporated, i.e. the Pro-Life court is all about misery and chaos 

 

If the country is in chaos it's easier to create a dictatorship 


Anarchy is better than the weaponized incompetence currently oppressing America’s once-great cities. Imposing onerous laws only on the lawful, letting the underbelly get away with murder. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, LeviF said:


Anarchy is better than the weaponized incompetence currently oppressing America’s once-great cities. Imposing onerous laws only on the lawful, letting the underbelly get away with murder. 

Not to peace loving people, i.e., the majority of the country. We will get violent when we have to, and God have mercy on you when that happens

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
On 6/25/2022 at 8:54 AM, Tiberius said:

Focus d-bag. Constitution. Hitler made trains run on time argument is not an argument for constitutional government. 

 

 

I believe that was Mussolini, not Hitler.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Not to peace loving people, i.e., the majority of the country. We will get violent when we have to, and God have mercy on you when that happens


Loving peace isn’t a virtue when you aren’t capable of war. 

Posted
23 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

At least those three justices understood what the facts of the case were instead of just making them up to get to their desired outcome...

 

 

 

Like Sebelius.  Just the facts.  

Posted
4 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

Like Sebelius.  Just the facts.  

 

  • Kennedy was not fire, he resigned
  • The District had no objection to him returning to the field after everyone had left to pray
  • Some students felt compelled to join in the prayers to stay connected to the team or ensure playing time

This isn't a case about someone trying to pray in private, it's about someone who only would pray in public when there would be plenty of people to watch and potentially join in. 

 

This guy is basically the definition of the people Jesus called out in Matthew 6:5-6:

Quote

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

 

×
×
  • Create New...