- Joined
- Apr 15, 2020
- Messages
- 3,601
- Reaction score
- 749
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Is it the ACA of UCA?
Yes, she did. She called her dangerous to the country because of her deeply held religious beliefs (anti-abortion, anti-Gay), "a dangerous right wing ideologue".
That you don't like that I proved my point that you asked me to prove above isn't my problem.
You be sure and have a great day splitting hairs while arguing semantics.
a tually that is ip for the courts and the courts go by the founding documents.Right. So you won’t care when we make DC a state regardless of previous intentions. If it’s allowed, it should happen.
a tually that is ip for the courts and the courts go by the founding documents.
so it would not become a state as it was never meant to be a state.
i suggest taking a high school history class.
then you would know what you are talking about. for a change.
nope because legislation can be challenged in court yes civics 101 you should try taking a high school civics class so you know what you are talking about for a change.No sir. That is decided by legislation. Civics 101!
a tually that is ip for the courts and the courts go by the founding documents.
so it would not become a state as it was never meant to be a state.
i suggest taking a high school history class.
then you would know what you are talking about. for a change.
nope because legislation can be challenged in court yes civics 101 you should try taking a high school civics class so you know what you are talking about for a change.
see my previous response. have a nice day. i don't answer arguments already answered.You ran away from my question about this earlier. What does the constitution say about the size of the District of Columbia? Can it be made smaller constitutionally?
see my previous response i don't deal with arguments already answered. your fishing because you have nothing.I bet you think the SC will just overrule, amirite?
see my previous response i don't deal with arguments already answered. your fishing because you have nothing.
see my previous response. have a nice day. i don't answer arguments already answered.
They are not opinion pieces. If you had actually read them they were reports of leftist filth attacking the Supreme Court nominee. Like this one:
However, Newsweek left their lies about Barrett on Twitter intact:
Once again proving that the media in the US is truly the enemy of the people. As are all leftist filth.
But not in the legal definition.Unborn person is one of the definitions of 'child', like it or not. This is in response to the person who claimed an unborn can't be called a baby or child.
We aren't talking about legal definitions. The legal definitions are wrong. That is the whole point of the abortion debate. To change the faulty law.
You find it odd I don't read the entire thread or posts following after a post I respond to and comment?I used his own definition to underline how specious his argument is. I find it odder that you weren’t following along but want to comment anyway.
You find it odd I don't read the entire thread or posts following after a post I respond to and comment?
Why would anyone do that?
Do you?
Nah, if a poster responds to me directly, I'm going to respond to that post without reading ahead. It makes no sense to read ahead on every single post responded to me.Or just a few posts so you could identify if your addition wasn’t really a subtraction before replying.
Nah, if a poster responds to me directly, I'm going to respond to that post without reading ahead. It makes no sense to read ahead on every single post responded to me.
Why does it bother you so much?
And that's the whole point of our abortion debate. To get rid of a horrible immoral law.But not in the legal definition.
child
n. 1) a person's natural offspring. 2) a person 14 years and under. A "child" should be distinguished from a "minor" who is anyone under 18 in almost all states.
child
Definition of child in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionarylegal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
And the legal definition is what the law(s) have to go by.
Whether you like it or not.
So your link proves that these comments were not made currently.
Thank you for getting the gist of the thread. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
What law?And that's the whole point of our abortion debate. To get rid of a horrible immoral law.
So you seem to be lost in your own thread. That's only your problem.I didn’t respond to you, you interjected.
I believe you when you tell me you don’t read anything in order to weigh in on a subject.
Yes we do. Again...you guys operate in heresay. We have Ginsburgs actual .....well here...enjoy.
Flashback: In 2016, Ginsburg said Senate should hold SCOTUS confirmation hearing during election year
The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg prompted key Washington figures to change their tune on whether a high-court vacancy should be filled so close to an election - and even the late jurist seems to have reversed herself on the issue.www.foxnews.com
I heard Bidens largest crowd thus far has been 80 people. Ouch.I can tell how popular Trump gets each day! By election day, he’ll probably only lose by a blowout vs a landslide.
I heard Bidens largest crowd thus far has been 80 people. Ouch.