You would still need 2/3rds of the senate to vote for impeachment and how likely is that? What's the hurry to seat the frat boy anyway? Oh that's right, the next congress may not have the same majority.
|
You would still need 2/3rds of the senate to vote for impeachment and how likely is that? What's the hurry to seat the frat boy anyway? Oh that's right, the next congress may not have the same majority.
Yeah. You know how all those angry white men are. They're all the same, you know. And we don't believe in racial stereotyping around here.Quote:
Typical angry white man rage
I don't put you in that category JL, but I'm debating between holier than thou, and a bible thumper. Kind of hard when you go all reasonable and show empathy. 8D
Enjoy this
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...6haIODlk9g--~C
Hello:
I was happy when I heard the FBI was gonna investigate.. I DIDN'T think the FBI was in anybody's pocket. Guess what?
Look.. Even if Kavanaugh withdraws or loses Trumps support, we're gonna get a dupe sans baggage.. The ONLY reason Trump picked Kavanaugh is because he doesn't believe a sitting president can be indicted.. I don't care about beer.. I care that he LIES about beer. I don't even care that he tried to get laid, even if clumsily.. I care that he LIED about trying to get laid.. Truth is, I'd be FINE with a justice who interprets the Constitution as written, cause I find it to be a very liberal document..
But, I care that he's gonna FORCE this orange lawbreaking abomination on us for the next two years..
IMPEACH..... IMPEACH..... IMPEACH..
excon
How do you know he lied about beer? He said he drank beer, he said he liked beer, he said he drank to excess. So how would you KNOW he lied?Quote:
I don't care about beer.. I care that he LIES about beer. I don't even care that he tried to get laid, even if clumsily.. I care that he LIED about trying to get laid.. Truth is, I'd be FINE with a justice who interprets the Constitution as written, cause I find it to be a very liberal document..
How do you KNOW he lied about the alleged assault? Because Dr. Ford says otherwise? It's your kind of thinking that the republicans are counting on.
As to the Constitution, where did the liberal justices find rights to abortion or gay marriage in the Constitution? No, a true constitutionalist would be a nightmare to liberals since they would no longer be able to legislate from the bench.
He may not be lying, just doesn't remember doing things in his drunken stupor. Wouldn't be the first time that has happened, as any drunk can attest. I have seen and experienced this happened as to NOT believe what a drunk says, especially a young one. You have worked with drunks and addicts for 10 years JL, and I am sure you have the same position.Quote:
How do you know he lied about beer? He said he drank beer, he said he liked beer, he said he drank to excess. So how would you KNOW he lied?
He lied about being nicknamed BART, even though he signed a letter to his BUDS using that name.
It's plain STUPID that repubs take the word of an admitted hard drinking kid over a traumatized victim when we haven't heard from the other guy she names who has written books about drunken bad behavior when he was a kid and young adult, and BK's best bud.Quote:
How do you KNOW he lied about the alleged assault? Because Dr. Ford says otherwise? It's your kind of thinking that the republicans are counting on.
Where does it say churches can make abortion and gay rights illegal? Where does it say that churches can define the definition of marriage for everybody? Where does it say the states cannot make abortions legal, and redefine marriage for their populations sees fit?
Quote:
As to the Constitution, where did the liberal justices find rights to abortion or gay marriage in the Constitution? No, a true constitutionalist would be a nightmare to liberals since they would no longer be able to legislate from the bench.
Where does it say you can force your religious views on all men or women, or gays or any other citizen? I think the opposite is true to all those questions. You are free to state your opinions, but following your lead is voluntary. So is the right for your head to explode over somebody's right to pursuit their own happiness.
I think that's in the constitution somewhere, or is it the declaration of independence? Can't remember, as the coffee is still brewing, and I don't drink beer. To lazy to look it up or give you a link, so can you do it for me?
No, being stupid would be to take the accuser's words at face value when the vast weight of evidence speaks against her.Quote:
It's plain STUPID that repubs take the word of an admitted hard drinking kid over a traumatized victim when we haven't heard from the other guy she names who has written books about drunken bad behavior when he was a kid and young adult, and BK's best bud
You do realize that what you are describing was the situation as it existed BEFORE your beloved, law-writing liberal justices changed the law? If you are saying we should go back to that, then I'm with you.Quote:
Where does it say the states cannot make abortions legal, and redefine marriage for their populations sees fit?
No one is suggesting we put the church in charge, but neither does it say, however, that Christians must be silent and not engage in public debate. Besides, gay marriage is not a gay rights issue. It is about the necessarily selective and exclusive definition of marriage regarding what an individual state should legally recognize. It's why we don't allow a man to marry a dog, or three women to marry one man, or a man to marry a ten year old girl, or a woman to marry a tree. Marriage is an exclusively defined institution for a variety of good reasons.Quote:
Where does it say churches can make abortion and gay rights illegal? Where does it say that churches can define the definition of marriage for everybody?
BTW, have you noticed the evidence coming out that weighs AGAINST the credibility of your accusers?
No, being stupid would be to take the accuser's words at face value when the vast weight of evidence speaks against her.Quote:
It's plain STUPID that repubs take the word of an admitted hard drinking kid over a traumatized victim when we haven't heard from the other guy she names who has written books about drunken bad behavior when he was a kid and young adult, and BK's best bud
How interesting given you take the accused at face value, but Dr. Ford has stated she WANTS an FBI investigation, and KG, well he never said he did, he left it to the committee, and if not for Flake making his vote contingent on that investigation we wouldn't have one and Grassley said it wasn't needed. BK has played to the repubs and dissed the dems throughout his hearing culminating in his outrageous left conspiracy theories. I took them both at their word and called for an investigation through the whole thing though I opposed the frat boy, moreso after the hearings, I readily admit, but for me it's almost always TRUST, BUT VERIFY! How many times do I have to say that? I also think repubs are rigging the investigation, and that too may be VERIFIED. No I don't trust the PROVEN lying, cheating, dufus at all, and he calls the shots. I ain't STUPID.Quote:
Where does it say the states cannot make abortions legal, and redefine marriage for their populations sees fit?
You do realize that what you are describing was the situation as it existed BEFORE your beloved, law-writing liberal justices changed the law? If you are saying we should go back to that, then I'm with you.
And what law did they change? Abolishing slavery? Reafirming that woman can vote, black people can go to any school, woman can decide how to treat their own bodies? Please specify what you mean? I got time, and a listening ear.
Quote:
Where does it say churches can make abortion and gay rights illegal? Where does it say that churches can define the definition of marriage for everybody?
Earth to Tal. No one is suggesting we put the church in charge, but neither does it say, however, that Christians must be silent and not engage in public debate. Besides, gay marriage is not a gay rights issue. It is about the necessarily selective and exclusive definition of marriage regarding what an individual state should legally recognize. It's why we don't allow a man to marry a dog, or three women to marry one man, or a man to marry a ten year old girl, or a woman to marry a tree. Marriage is an exclusively defined institution for a variety of good reasons.
BTW, have you noticed the evidence coming out that weighs AGAINST the credibility of your accusers?
It still is an exclusively defined institution...between two humans, as legislated in a growing number of states. Yeah you have a right as a citizen to engage in public debate, and states can legislate rules and laws according to their population, and states have done just that, legally and lawfully.
I won't comment on your claim of evidence against accusers since its only Wednesday, and going for my second cup of brew and breakfast. Wish you could join me.
Merrick Garland and Kavanaugh agreed 93% of the time in their court decisions. My question is what is going to happen when classmates of journalist expose their drinking ,partying and debauchery during their high school and college years ?
1. The Supreme Court did not abolish slavery, it affirmed it in the Dred Scott decision. A Constitutional amendment abolished slavery, which is how is should operate. Same thing is true of giving women the right to vote. Constitutional amendment, not a court decision, so you should get your facts straight.Quote:
And what law did they change? Abolishing slavery? Reafirming that woman can vote, black people can go to any school, woman can decide how to treat their own bodies? Please specify what you mean? I got time, and a listening ear.
2. While it is true that the SCOTUS decision in the Brown case did spell the beginning of the end for segragated schools, it had to overturn a previous SCOTUS decision to do it.
3. Women cannot choose how to treat their own bodies. A woman, in nearly every state, cannot freely engage in prostitution with her body. She cannot sell her body organs. She is not free to kill her body in suicide. She cannot put certain drugs into her body. Interestingly, the only real area of debate with a woman's body is her freedom to have her completely innocent, defenseless, unborn baby killed while still in her body. I'm thrilled beyond belief that I am not supporting that point of view.
4. The laws I am referring to that the Court changed was in the case of abortion and gay marriage, but you could also throw prayer in schools or removing the ten commandments into that box, practices which had existed for nearly two centuries but were suddenly and amazingly found to be unconstitutional by the Court when they plainly were not.
It has nothing to do with state legislation. That is what you said you were for, and I agreed with you. SCOTUS imposed marriage between two men on EVERY state, thus denying states the option to "legislate rules and laws according to their population..." So it took away that right from states that you seem to favor, and in so doing diminished the exclusivity of marriage. If we decide two men can get married, then why not three men? Why not two women and one man? Why not two male cousins, or three male cousins, or a male and female cousin? After all, they should all have equal protection under the law, shouldn't they? So they have opened a Pandora's box with that brainless decision.Quote:
It still is an exclusively defined institution...between two humans, as legislated in a growing number of states.
You see you are not digging deeper into the hidden meanings . You are not divining the meanings of the penumbras, formed by emanations in the guaranteed rights.Quote:
The laws I am referring to that the Court changed was in the case of abortion and gay marriage,
https://theworddetective.files.wordp...pty_dumpty.png
Now THAT'S funny! Yes indeed. One must have great wisdom says our great master, the Mighty Liberal! You nailed it, Tomder.Quote:
You see you are not digging deeper into the hidden meanings . You are not divining the meanings of the penumbras, formed by emanations in the guaranteed rights.
They will avail themselves of the same process we all have won't they? Lets be very clear though, we are not talking about drinking, partying (Underage or NOT) or CONSENTUAL debauchery here are we. The allegation is sexual ASSAULT.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes, and the evidence is overwhelming. It is:Quote:
The allegation is sexual ASSAULT.
1. Someone has a credible accusation. That person is?????
Sometimes I think, and I realize this is not fair, but I still think that if there is any justice in this world, this same farce will happen to Tal, all in the spirit of what goes around, comes around. But like I said, I know that is foolishness. Still, the astonishing injustice of this affair, and the plainly political and hypocritical response of the democrats, is all just nauseating.
That would be fun. I have a feeling that we would find a lot to agree on, but it might come after the neighbors have to call the cops on us! Sadly, I am limited to only one cup of coffee. Acid reflux. Bummer.Quote:
I won't comment on your claim of evidence against accusers since its only Wednesday, and going for my second cup of brew and breakfast. Wish you could join me.
He quoted YOU, so he must be addressing YOU!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Quote:
1. The Supreme Court did not abolish slavery, it affirmed it in the Dred Scott decision. A Constitutional amendment abolished slavery, which is how is should operate. Same thing is true of giving women the right to vote. Constitutional amendment, not a court decision, so you should get your facts straight.
Another way to CHANGE the law, in addition to a constitutional amendment.
I never said it did, I ask you to specify your meaning. Thanks for YOUR clarification, glad you know the nuance of law, and the history of the process. More on that later.
Quote:
2. While it is true that the SCOTUS decision in the Brown case did spell the beginning of the end for segragated schools, it had to overturn a previous SCOTUS decision to do it.
Does that include the safe and legal abortion procedures woman have at the gynecologist, paid for by insurance, which poorer people don't have? I'm not for abortions either, but it's a personal choice a woman should make.Quote:
3. Women cannot choose how to treat their own bodies. A woman, in nearly every state, cannot freely engage in prostitution with her body. She cannot sell her body organs. She is not free to kill her body in suicide. She cannot put certain drugs into her body. Interestingly, the only real area of debate with a woman's body is her freedom to have her completely innocent, defenseless, unborn baby killed while still in her body. I'm thrilled beyond belief that I am not supporting that point of view.
This was my question before, what law was changed to allow abortion and gay rights? Point being it was through lawful process of the[FONT=Tahoma,Calibri,Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif][COLOR=#001000] law.[/COLOR][/FONT]Quote:
4. The laws I am referring to that the Court changed was in the case of abortion and gay marriage, but you could also throw prayer in schools or removing the ten commandments into that box, practices which had existed for nearly two centuries but were suddenly and amazingly found to be unconstitutional by the Court when they plainly were not.
Don't be silly, it's limited to two humans, and maybe those that want it expanded will follow that process, but that's another debate but I reject your what if and why stop there arguments since the law as is precludes them. While states have a sovereignty, our system gives federal government the higher sovereignty. One could argue that abolishing slavery was the Pandora's box, noting the violence and discriminations that went on for years and still does in some places and some ways.Quote:
It has nothing to do with state legislation. That is what you said you were for, and I agreed with you. SCOTUS imposed marriage between two men on EVERY state, thus denying states the option to "legislate rules and laws according to their population..." So it took away that right from states that you seem to favor, and in so doing diminished the exclusivity of marriage. If we decide two men can get married, then why not three men? Why not two women and one man? Why not two male cousins, or three male cousins, or a male and female cousin? After all, they should all have equal protection under the law, shouldn't they? So they have opened a Pandora's box with that brainless decision.
Neither us is perfect or always correct, that's why we work on it. You think your conservative judges will take you back to the way it was with abortion and guy rights? Why would they not bring back slavery too? Judges can't make or enforce laws, but I bet the lawyers are lining up waiting for BK.
I don't comment on evidence until a fair investigation has been done and where we differ is an allegation is probable cause to investigate. I have to leave it at that and hope like you justice will be served, and long suffering victims get closure. Being helpless and powerless is not a good place for any human to be. I don't feel like throwing rocks back at you at THIS time, and sorry about that acid reflux... been there done that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I seldom talk politics over coffee and food. 8D and it's not worth violence over it either. You would't hit a guy with glasses would you?
Ha! I wear them too, so we would both be safe.Quote:
You would't hit a guy with glasses would you?
You said you are not for abortions. Why are you not for them?
Well, Kavanaugh is done. Come to find out he threw ice at someone 35 years ago in a tavern. Wow. And he didn't go to jail for that? A major failure of justice for sure.
The decision of a Supreme Court nomination should never weigh this heavily on the lives of Americans. The founders would be appalled at the tremendous centralization of power and decision making that occurs in SCOTUS. The remedy is amendments that limit SCOTUS terms;and granting both to Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of 3/5 of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.
Most likely this will not happen through the traditional amendment proposals via Congress route . It will require an Article 5 convention. And while we are at it there should be an amendment that allows state legislatures to propose amendments if proposed by 2/3 of the legislatures .(We can add in term limits for Congress too.)
I'm a guy and a responsible one, but would never tell a female what she should do about being pregnant... and marriage is NOT an option. There are some very safe responsible options for responsible females to avoid pregnancy and making an early decision is one of them. Females of means will have that option and always have and no one is the wiser, not even husbands and boyfriends. One of my strong peeves against BK was his handling of a teen immigrant who was pregnant from rape, that he tried to block though she had permission and her own means. You may of heard of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproducti...-abortion-case
As a guy and citizen you should not make THAT lifechanging choice unless you are committed to the care and raising of that child to the age of adulthood (18), with or without the woman. I am against late term abortions though, which I define as past the 1st trimester. Right or wrong. I also believe any parent that doesn't educate their kids from a young age (Before public school, and age appropriately) in how to handle these things should be locked away for abuse.
Did you forget the sarcasm font?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Term limits YES for SCOTUS! I can see a lot of conflicts when we get to the rest of your fixes. I thought states could already propose amendment through a constitutional convention.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
https://www.wikihow.com/Amend-the-Constitution
Quote:
For an amendment to be proposed via a constitutional convention, two-thirds of the state legislatures must call for it. That convention proposes the amendment which is then sent to the states to be approved, and approval must be granted by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions among the states.[4]
yeah but I don't want to have a convention after the one necessary to get these changes. My way would propose amendments by the states without going the convention route. I want one now ;but I clearly see the risk of a potential runaway convention. That's really what happened the first time. All they were supposed to do is amend the Articles of Confederation .By the time they were done they createe a new government . I don't think it's likely ,but would prefer to have state legislatures still have the power to propose amendments without the need for a convention. You think the ones I suggested would be problems ? I did not evenmention states veto of laws Congress passes ;or balanced budget amendments . I really wanted to stick to the issue of rebalancing the government into 3 equal branches. So we'll have to wait for another discussion to repeal the 17th amendment ,or a constitutional requirement to sunset regulations subject to reauthorization . Or creating limits of government powers pertaining to the Commerce Clause.
Tom you are surely not saying the Constitution is flawed?
Repeal the 17th amendment? Put the senate in the hands of state party bosses and not in the hands of the people?
The Senate will get the results of the FBI investigation TONIGHT! Is the fix in by the white house?
Why are you against late term abortions?Quote:
I am against late term abortions though, which I define as past the 1st trimester.
When you say you are against them, do you mean they should not be legal?
It's more of a too late to turn back now in the process of life kind of thing. Where you draw that line has always been a subject of great debate, as has assisting a human to die, or life giving procedures being withheld so one can die. For some the jury is out, for some it's not. Not unlike our topic, as there are just many varying opinions on this nomination and the process. I think we can agree on outcomes, but I have a real problem with how we arrive at those outcomes and if you want less abortions then information and the tools that make them unnecessry should be readily available. Closing down Planned Parenthood and the MANY services they provide to stop abortions is a bridge to far for me.
On the current subject senators are viewing the FBI report under a very strict process, with debate to follow. Then the voting starts. It's almost over.
Again, when you say you are against them, do you mean they should not be legal?
Why don't you start another question if debate is what you want on another subject JL?
Hello again, j:Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I'm not real smart.. What I love about the Constitution, is it was written for dummies like me. I frankly don't know HOW to interpret the words in the Constitution OTHER than what they actually MEAN in the English language.. So, while I don't know about activist liberal justices, I DO know how to speak the kings English..
Having said that, the 14th Amendment is clear.. 1) It says that if some citizens have a particular right, then ALL of the citizens have that right.. 2) There ARE rights that come along with marriage. Ergo, pursuant to the 14th, if SOME citizens have those rights, then ALL the citizens have those rights. 3) They also decided that the right to marry means you may marry the one you love - not the one the state requires you to marry..
I wonder.. If certain words have to be in the Constitution before laws can be made about them, I can't find the word "murder".. Given your argument, murder MUST be Constitutional..
excon
Here's a word for you this morning JL... SMEAR. Is it a smear against someone if it's TRUE? How would you know?
Why are you hesitant to answer the question? You are the one who brought up the twin subjects of abortion and gay marriage.Quote:
Why don't you start another question if debate is what you want on another subject JL?
Abortions or family planning are the right of individuals within common sense parameters, and the church has NO exclusive rights to define marriage by their own definition. Before you ask I have laid out MY common sense parameters to abortions, and the reasons where spelled out above.
You may not like my opinion, and that's okay with me.Can we get back to the repub sham investigation, or you answer my question on smears?
lol sham investigation . The parameters of the investigation were exactly what the Democrats asked for before they started moving the goal posts . But turn out the lights Your smear job did not work .
So now Kavanaugh can join Ray Donovan in asking ;“Which office do I go to get my reputation back?”
I call it a sham Tom because everything the dufus has ever done has been a self serving con job to get fame, fortune, power, and all that good stuff he thinks he is entitled to. Why do you think this would be any different than all the other things he has done in his life?
His daddy taught him well.
It's a very simple question that you are plainly afraid to answer. You gave this less than clear statement on abortion ("It's more of a too late to turn back now in the process of life kind of thing"), and now you don't want to say if abortions after three months should, or should not, be legal. I find this in many liberals. "I'm OK with abortion because I don't think the law should intrude on a woman's right to control her own body. However, I also believe the unborn "organism" becomes genuinely human at some point, and in that case abortion becomes unacceptable, but it'll be a cold day in hades before I do anything to protect that human life with the law. So I'm in favor of abortion unless, of course, I'm not." What a strange logic.Quote:
Abortions or family planning are the right of individuals within common sense parameters, and the church has NO exclusive rights to define marriage by their own definition. Before you ask I have laid out MY common sense parameters to abortions, and the reasons where spelled out above.
Cold day in Hades sums it up
Only the small narrow mind can not see the nuances and depths of ones different views from their own even though I have spent many posts explaining that complexity. That's fine that you don't agree or understand as most holier than thou bible thumpers don't, as for them its so simple as liberals bad, conservatives good. No in between can be contemplated so no compromise can be gained.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Naw, I'm not ready to make illegal those who might stretch my tolerances, or criminalize them for the narrow view. You just keep it simple for yourself while I explore the possibilities. Unlike you I don't just dismiss you because I understand you, so if you don't mind if I don't just jump on your bandwagon and ride head long into your ideology or anything else, maybe the next time you holler your murdering babies you will also step up and raise those babies you say your saving.
Until then you're as dead beat as the natural father who walks away from that responsibility. Since you can hold your nose at the lying cheating dufus con man and his band of sycophants then you just keep holding that nose as I go about my own business in my own way. My responses might not be good enough for you, but that's not my problem.
We both know how our debates end... they never do! Probably never will. Let me know when your ready for the gay marriage thing.
OK. So actually it's really not too late to turn back. Just wanted to know your view on the matter. At least you are honest enough to say it's alright to abort (kill) an unborn child at any point of the pregnancy, including the day prior to the day the child would be born. I'm not ready to sacrifice that child's life on the altar of political correctness.Quote:
It's more of a too late to turn back now in the process of life kind of thing.
Wow you can be sensitive. I haven't dismissed you at all. I just wanted you to clarify your position on legalizing abortion, which you have done. I don't understand it. I would suggest you watch a video of an abortion at 3 months and then come back and tell us about it.Quote:
Unlike you I don't just dismiss you because I understand you.
LOL, you quoted my words and still twist them. Was that to be provocative or are you really clueless?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:38 AM. |