• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Democrats Attacking Amy Coney Barrett’s Religion And Family?

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.

I know you don’t realize this but you just flat out stated that her legal decisions are/will be based on her religious convictions. *You* said that. Pressley called her an ideologue. *You* are arguing that Amy Born Again approaches law through the lens of her Bible. Rep Pressley showed more respect in her statement to ACB’s resume and arguments than you did in your own post defending her.

I don’t have to argue anything. You just show up, type stuff, and then sit there bruised after stepping on one intellectual rake after another.
 
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.
 
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.

No sir. That is decided by legislation. Civics 101!
 
Biden just delivered a speech in which we understand why the GOP is desperate for this argument to take hold. They are outflanked politically despite the actual process leverage.

They know it. Joe knows it too. ;)
 
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.


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?
 
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.

I bet you think the SC will just overrule, amirite?
 
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. have a nice day. i don't answer arguments already answered.
 
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 i don't deal with arguments already answered. your fishing because you have nothing.

I don’t have to see anything. I already know the answers, I have an education and I know how our government works.
 
see my previous response. have a nice day. i don't answer arguments already answered.


Does it say that congress can't reduce the size of the District of Columbia?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And
 
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.

Get back to us when Trump retracts something. Newsweek got it wrong. They did something about it.
 
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.
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.


And the legal definition is what the law(s) have to go by.
Whether you like it or not.
 
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?
 
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?

Or just a few posts so you could identify if your addition wasn’t really a subtraction before replying.
 
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 you didn't answer, do you always read ahead when you reply to posts directly responded to 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.
Why does it bother you so much?

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.
 
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.


And the legal definition is what the law(s) have to go by.
Whether you like it or not.
And that's the whole point of our abortion debate. To get rid of a horrible immoral law.
 
And that's the whole point of our abortion debate. To get rid of a horrible immoral law.
What law?
There's no law requiring abortion.

Or are you trying to change the definiton of child or baby?
 
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.
So you seem to be lost in your own thread. That's only your problem.
NOTE: I never responded to you until you responded to my post to another poster.
 
Yes we do. Again...you guys operate in heresay. We have Ginsburgs actual .....well here...enjoy.
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.
 
I heard Bidens largest crowd thus far has been 80 people. Ouch.

I heard there’s a pandemic on. 200k families have said “ouch”. Losers and suckers.
 
Back
Top Bottom