Punish Women For Having Abortions?

[Boxlicker101]

No it isn't that powerful. They have absolutely no power to enforce a goddamn thing. They can't even move until someone brings a problem to them and once something is brought to them they are held to fairly narrow corridors of action. They really aren't that powerful.

Really lack of communication is th eonly GOOD reason for a weak federal government. And the reason we don't let each and every person decide is because the average person has neither the knowledge nor the inclination to handle the majority of these issues.

It's not unimportant. History is important. But dead men don't get the rule the living.

Except in Chicago, of course.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yeah but that's history now not current events.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yeah but that's history now not current events.

"but...but....Chicago!" has been a trusty, hallowed meme of Wingnut Nation for many many years.

Unfortunately for them, it has little to no resonance for anyone under 60 (the vast majority of the population in Murica).

Soon it will be as politically relevant as "Fifty-four forty or fight!"

 

[Real_American11]

No it isn't that powerful. They have absolutely no power to enforce a goddamn thing.

Nine people can strike down any law, they can make new laws based on their interpretation of the Constitution... that is too powerful and it's not power granted in the Constitution. They gave themselves that role.

Really lack of communication is th eonly GOOD reason for a weak federal government.

No individual responsibility, freedom, and liberty are the reasons that governments, especially national governments should be kept small.

Why should people in DC be running the lives of people in Texas, Florida, California, etc?

I'm having trouble finding in the constitution where they mention abortion or fetuses in the womb.

So you're point is that people in the 1700s had better morals than you? That they didn't need to be told that killing unborn babies was wrong?

You're a fucking piece of scum.

I see that Real_American is saber rattling and spewing nonsense about the supposed coming civil war.

What a fucking moron you are, you act as if civil wars don't happen all around the world today, you act like we haven't had one here in our past.

Don't worry, nobody is going to have to gun you down in the streets, you're going the way of the dinosaurs.

You insane SJW filth, will lose this fight.

It's funny that you idiots think that you're going to stage an armed insurrection though.

The US Government could not handle a full-scale revolt.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Nine people can strike down any law, they can make new laws based on their interpretation of the Constitution.

Name the new laws written by the SCOTUS.


Link these laws.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Nine people can strike down any law, they can make new laws based on their interpretation of the Constitution... that is too powerful and it's not power granted in the Constitution. They gave themselves that role.

That is exactly the power granted it in the Constitution. It is there entire purpose for existing. And they cannot make new laws at all. I'm sorry you don't like our system of checks and balances but that's how it works.

In reality not only can Congress and the President utterly ignore the Constitution if they so choose the Supreme Court has no real mechanism to stop them. And as "Real UnAmericans" are proving RIGHT NOW the Supreme Court is at the utter mercy of the other two branches. Apparently there is no real reason why Obama couldn't have held off on naming a new judge until tomorrow (whichi s always a day away) or why Congress can't refuse to hold hearings. So eliminating the Supereme Court with our current laws is as simple as waiting for bitches to die.

No individual responsibility, freedom, and liberty are the reasons that governments, especially national governments should be kept small.

Yeah, those run contrary to having a society. More to the point those are just pretty sentiments not quantifiable things in most cases.

Why should people in DC be running the lives of people in Texas, Florida, California, etc?

Because they are the federal government and we need them. You have to have rules to have a society.

So you're point is that people in the 1700s had better morals than you? That they didn't need to be told that killing unborn babies was wrong?

No they didn't have better morals than me and not only did they have no problem killing unborn babies most of us are well aware they had little problem killing born babies. At least by comparison to today's pussified folk.

What a fucking moron you are, you act as if civil wars don't happen all around the world today, you act like we haven't had one here in our past.

Oh they happen, but almost exclusively in shithole nations for people who have nothing to lose. Americans have a lot to lose. Trust me the average American is a lot more interested in keeping their internet connection than they are in abortions.

The US Government could not handle a full-scale revolt.

It doesn't have to. It has to handle a handful of idiots who think they can rise up against the vast majority.

 

[Real_American11]

That is exactly the power granted it in the Constitution.

Wrong look up the history.

The USSC granted themselves the power during a case in the late 18th century.

Supreme Court is at the utter mercy of the other two branches.

Horseshit, they've been over turning laws for years.

Yeah, those run contrary to having a society.

Yeah, contrary to a communist society.

Good think this is a constitutional republic founded to protect liberty.

Because they are the federal government and we need them.

Muahahaha!

No they didn't have better morals than me

Well, since you are pure evil... I'm gonna doubt that one.

and not only did they have no problem killing unborn babies most of us are well aware they had little problem killing born babies.

Proof?

Oh they happen, but almost exclusively in shithole nations for people who have nothing to lose. Americans have a lot to lose. Trust me the average American is a lot more interested in keeping their internet connection than they are in abortions.

Yes, because America has become a degenerate shit-hole, where idiots worship celebrities, treat government like royalty, and only seem to care about an "issue" if it's hip and trendy on MTV...

But these people can not succeed, and soon the rest of the country will throw off their blinders and break their shackles to the Zionist threat.

It doesn't have to. It has to handle a handful of idiots who think they can rise up against the vast majority.

Good thing we have this invention called "irregular warfare"... do you expect the resistance members to march in formation and wave targets over the head for the drone operators?

This war will start with kidnappings/executions, assassinations/sabotage, bombings, hacking/EMPs, eventually small-scale firefights and maybe some larger scale operations if the resistance members can get their hands on military grade vehicles and anti-armor weapons.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I say you should put that quote into some context.

Donald Trump said Wednesday that women who undergo abortions should face “some form of punishment” if the procedure were outlawed.

http://ktla.com/2016/03/30/women-wh...if-procedures-are-outlawed-donald-trump-says/


<derp snip>
Nice attempt at situational outrage over a non issue though!! I wonder if it's the democrats or the rethuglicans pushing this outrage, it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference between the two every day.

Time to educate the BotanyBoy, methinks.

UPON FURTHER REVIEW

At a Green Bay Wississippi townhall meeting last night, The Donald was again asked about punishin' them sluts.

Chris Matthews: "Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?"

Trump: "The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment."

Matthews: "For the woman?"

Trump: "Yes, there has to be some form."

The backlash was instantaneous and within hours Trump tried to walk back his statement.

No "if the procedure was outlawed" qualifier.
No "theoretical ban" qualifier.
Just punishin' sluts.

Bah Gawd, King, Rob is providin' us a LINK!

 

[Sean Renaud]

No, you go look up history. In the mean while according to the Constitution The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,



It is literally their entire fucking job to have power over cases in the US.

Overturning laws that are found Unconstitutional is again their entire purpose. I'd love to know what case specifically you feel they granted themselves the power in. And then once you've found it tell me why the President and/or Congress never overturned it which they could with ease.

No, those ideas are contrary to any true society. You sacrifice freedom and liberty for security. That the way it is, has been and forever shall be. We can quibble over the exact amouns necessary but still

Here's a decent piece on infanticide in colonial America. And that of course only covers cases that could be proven in someway, not the undoubtedly more cases of women who could find away to keep it under wraps. I suppose if you prefer living babies in dumpsters to clusters of cells being vacuumed out you have a point but hey I know how you lot roll. And the reasons for abortion and infanticide then are roughly the same as the reasons today. Not in any position to care for the child.

We're not a degenerate place at all and people have always worshipped celebrities. That's just humanity for you. But your point about only caring about an issue if it's hip and trendy is my point. Our lives are so fucking great in this country that we don't have genuine problems for the most part. We have annoyances we wish would go away.

These people do not have a hard time suceeding. If anything we have a difficult time failing. Your world is dying friend.

No, I don't expect you stand in formation and get bombed. I expect you to be an annoyance. Much like any other terrorist organization. Dangerous to a few unlucky people but by and large harmless.

As you state you'll do some shit that will motivate the rest of us to take you seriously. We'll find you, kill you, and be back in time to watch the League of Legends semi-finals.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Nine people can strike down any law, they can make new laws based on their interpretation of the Constitution.

Actually it's five people, not nine.

And they cannot "make new laws based on their interpretations of the Constitution", but they can, and do, declare laws unconstitutional based on their interpretation of the Constitution.

Also, you are ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

 

[Real_American11]

...

I don't read walls of text, quote properly.

Also, based off of your past responses, I'll assume you're wrong about everything this time as well.

And they cannot "make new laws based on their interpretations of the Constitution"

When they interrupt the Constitution, over rule a law, over rule a ruling from a lower court... they are MAKING LAW.

Because now they've set a precedent that will be followed by lower courts.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Time to educate the BotanyBoy, methinks.

UPON FURTHER REVIEW

At a Green Bay Wississippi townhall meeting last night, The Donald was again asked about punishin' them sluts.



No "if the procedure was outlawed" qualifier.
No "theoretical ban" qualifier.
Just punishin' sluts.

Bah Gawd, King, Rob is providin' us a LINK!

Keep pushing that spin, go watch the video in your own link day day. As much as they tried to edit every bit of it out it's clearly disclosed 1 time that.

"When asked IF ABORTION WERE MADE ILLEGAL."

Which is a derp question the Clintonintes are using to say "See he's going to punish sluts!" which is just promoting the idea that sluts are the only ones that get abortions kinda playing into the RW storyline. Not to mention it's just as absurd. Congress isn't passing any abortion ban and the SCOTUS isn't backing it either so it's a rather moot talking point.

So Rob, look you can keep trying to 'educate' me into believing that trump wanting to punish sluts and that's some how more diabolical than every other (R) and a good chunk of (D)'s, including her Highness Clinton, who also wanted to punish sluts right up until just recently.

But I'm not buying it! No matter how much you try to edit context out of the conversation to push your partisan poo.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Keep pushing that spin, go watch the video in your own link day day. As much as they tried to edit every bit of it out it's clearly disclosed 1 time that.

"When asked IF ABORTION WERE MADE ILLEGAL."

Which is a derp question the Clintonintes are using to say "See he's going to punish sluts!" which is just promoting the idea that sluts are the only ones that get abortions kinda playing into the RW storyline. Not to mention it's just as absurd. Congress isn't passing any abortion ban and the SCOTUS isn't backing it either so it's a rather moot talking point.

So Rob, look you can keep trying to 'educate' me into believing that trump wanting to punish sluts and that's some how more diabolical than every other (R) and a good chunk of (D)'s, including her Highness Clinton, who also wanted to punish sluts right up until just recently.

But I'm not buying it! No matter how much you try to edit context out of the conversation to push your partisan poo.

There were no "qualifiers" in Green Bay from Trump.

None.

The man wants to punish sluts.

 

[phrodeau]

This is when Carly Fiorina needs to challenge Trump with, "I've seen the video!"

 

[BotanyBoy]

There were no "qualifiers" in Green Bay from Trump.

None.

With Mathews there was, the reporter lady said so at the beginning of the video on your link. They try to not mention it and even edit it out of everything they can but there is that one disclosure they make so they they aren't called as big a liars as FOX. They like to ride the razors edge of dishonesty. LOL

Sorry...and it kinda has to have that qualifier, the whole discussion revolves around the hypothetical "if made illegal' premise.

It can't really be asked much less spun like you and others want unless it is.

The man wants to punish sluts.

Sure he does...just like all republicans and a number of Democrats including Clinton, well until she wanted to be POTUS and suddenly decided to be 'progressive' sounding.

 

[RobDownSouth]

With Mathews there was, the reporter lady said so at the beginning of the video on your link. They try to not mention it and even edit it out of everything they can but there is that one disclosure they make so they they aren't called as big a liars as FOX. They like to ride the razors edge of dishonesty. LOL

Sorry...and it kinda has to have that qualifier, the whole discussion revolves around the hypothetical "if made illegal' premise.

It can't really be asked much less spun like you and others want unless it is.



Sure he does...just like all republicans and a number of Democrats including Clinton, well until she wanted to be POTUS and suddenly decided to be 'progressive' sounding.

I know you want to cling to the first video (the one with qualifiers), I'm talking about the Green Bay episode that occurred days later. No qualifiers there. None.

Punish those sluts.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I know you want to cling to the first video (the one with qualifiers), I'm talking about the Green Bay episode that occurred days later. No qualifiers there. None.

I'm not clinging to shit I'm telling you that in your own link, the reporter in the video, said there was a qualifier during the Chris Matthews interview which is the one you quoted in post 208 trying to pretend it didn't.

Besides they ALL have to be under the assumption 'if it were made illegal" because the question simply wouldn't make sense otherwise.

You can't escape it because that particular question requires it to even make sense.

Punish those sluts.

Yea like I said him and everyone else with an (R) in front of their name along with a good portion of the older (D)'s. Like Clinton.

You can keep trying to hype it up all you want but this isn't one of the things that makes Trump so fuckin' scary. In fact it's pretty common place, tired as fuck and nearly a non-issue. Congress isn't banning abortions and the SCOTUS wouldn't uphold it even if they did.

You're not selling me on you situational librage Rob....accept it and move on, there are better fights to be had.

 

[CNYCarol]

The Donald declared today that his position of the day was that women should face punishment for having an abortion. This position, like all Trump positions, is subject to denial and/or about face at a later date.

What say you?
(poll to follow)

The real question is: Should ANYONE be punished for violating the law. Answer YES!

 

[Hard_Rom]

It is the duty of citizens to challenge if not disobey unjust laws.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I don't read walls of text, quote properly.

Also, based off of your past responses, I'll assume you're wrong about everything this time as well.

When they interrupt the Constitution, over rule a law, over rule a ruling from a lower court... they are MAKING LAW.

Because now they've set a precedent that will be followed by lower courts.

There is no wall of text and I didn't quote you because it wasn't necessary at all.

The real question is: Should ANYONE be punished for violating the law. Answer YES!

The answer is yes. But you wouldn't field that question if you thought such a law shouldn't exist.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The real question is: Should ANYONE be punished for violating the law. Answer YES!

Certainly Hillary should be.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

The real question is: Should ANYONE be punished for violating the law. Answer YES!

Your GOP overlords disagree with you.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I don't read walls of text, quote properly.

Also, based off of your past responses, I'll assume you're wrong about everything this time as well.

When they interrupt the Constitution, over rule a law, over rule a ruling from a lower court... they are MAKING LAW.

Because now they've set a precedent that will be followed by lower courts.

If you expect everyone to dumb down their responses to your fifth grade level of reading comprehension and thought you're going to have a bad time.

We can now add the function of The Supreme Court to the very long and growing list of subjects you know less than nothing about along with biology, infanticide, and morals.

 

[JackLuis]

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/batman-cluster.jpg

You guys are just Troll baiters.

 

[Real_American11]

There is no wall of text and I didn't quote you because it wasn't necessary at all.

Right here I won't read a wall of text.

...

Everything you say is a lie. You are a dangerous person, you wish to murder the world. You are scum.