Sean Hannity Is Abandoning Bush

[musicman]

The people of the US, as a whole are "up to their eyeballs in innocent blood?" I don't know about you, but I've never had an abortion and I've never asked a girl of mine to get one. I thought you didn't believe in Socialism? So you're a rugged, individualist in all matters except abortion? Could you explain then what it is that puts us "all in it together" on the issue of abortion but then things like social security or welfare are individual, not societal problems?

Right. Gotcha. You haven't PERSONALLY murdered any babies, so you're in the clear.

Got your story all ready, huh?

 

[archangel]

To say that slavery had "nothing to do with the Civil War" is a gross error. To say that it was about "unfair taxation" is wildly inaccurate - wrong war, bro.

The PRIMARY issue of the Civil War was states' rights.

but research actual history 101...it was a taxation issue...exportation of the 'Cotton trade'...maybe hard to digest...but it is a fact...both the North and South had slaves..! I am not for slavery...just actual history...the name of the game is report facts not BS....!

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Check out Lawrence vs. Texas

All they did was cite it. The ruling was still based on the Constitution. Both homo and hetero people engage in sodomy. Do you think it should be illegal? More importantly, do you think that it is appropriate for the government to dictate what you can and can't do with your own ass*ole?

 

[archangel]

All they did was cite it. The ruling was still based on the Constitution. Both homo and hetero people engage in sodomy. Do you think it should be illegal? More importantly, do you think that it is appropriate for the government to dictate what you can and can't do with your own ass*ole?

has this to do with the topic at hand....just more homo sidetracking....give it a rest! :2guns: Doc Holiday rocks!

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Sorry dude...hate to rain on your parade............

Have either of you considered the possibility that maybe it was a combination of a number of different issues that sparked the Civil War?

 

[GotZoom]

Depends on your definition of a majority. I think ruling one way or another because 51% believe something and 49% believe the opposite isn't always the best way to go. That's not to say that it's never the right way to go either. What constitutes an acceptable majority? Not sure. Hence my questions.

So you are stating that if every causasian and hispanic voted to bring back slavery, that would be ok?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

has this to do with the topic at hand....just more homo sidetracking....give it a rest! :2guns: Doc Holiday rocks!

Hey, you're no daisy. I didn't bring it up, Screaming Eagle did, so take it up with him Huckleberry.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Right. Gotcha. You haven't PERSONALLY murdered any babies, so you're in the clear.

Got your story all ready, huh?

Give me a break dude. Sin is personal, not societal.

 

[archangel]

Have either of you considered the possibility that maybe it was a combination of a number of different issues that sparked the Civil War?

just a little cowboy humor here....I was taught to read....maybe a little off track...but it does apply..if ya want to discredit me go for it....what do I know...just a hick...LOL

 

[musicman]

but research actual history 101...it was a taxation issue...exportation of the 'Cotton trade'...maybe hard to digest...but it is a fact...both the North and South had slaves..! I am not for slavery...just actual history...the name of the game is report facts not BS....!

Yeah, but the right of secession was the primary issue. And, the runaway erosion of states'(which is to say, people's) rights advocated by the Hagbard Celines in this country makes one wonder whether the issue shouldn't be revisited.

 

[archangel]

Hey, you're no daisy. I didn't bring it up, Screaming Eagle did, so take it up with him Huckleberry.

just a cowboy who kicks ass...and I do not see why you are addressing screaming eagle in this diatribe...if the shoe fits...well gee just wear it and buzz off to the daisy fields!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

All they did was cite it. The ruling was still based on the Constitution. Both homo and hetero people engage in sodomy. Do you think it should be illegal? More importantly, do you think that it is appropriate for the government to dictate what you can and can't do with your own ass*ole?

When judges cite something, it means that they considered it in the making of their decisions.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg advocates the consideration of foreign law and has said so more than once. Others on the Court - that is, liberal Court justices - agree with her and have made similar statements.

Again, do you think it is right for Supreme Court judges to consider foreign laws in the making of their decisions on the Supreme Court of the United States? Is this the kind of "interpretation" of our Constitution that you advocate?

 

[musicman]

Give me a break dude. Sin is personal, not societal.

Right. Not your problem. I wonder how that worked out for the Germans who ignored the stench of the ovens.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Yeah, but the right of secession was the primary issue. And, the runaway erosion of states'(which is to say, people's) rights advocated by the Hagbard Celines in this country makes one wonder whether the issue shouldn't be revisited.

This is just dumb. If anything, the things liberals advocate GIVE people more rights. They don't diminish anything. Name one way your freedom has been "restricted" or "diminished" by liberals. By the way, this is the third time I've asked this question on this thread and no one has responded. Can't come up with anything? Hmmm. I wonder why.

 

[archangel]

Yeah, but the right of secession was the primary issue. And, the runaway erosion of states'(which is to say, people's) rights advocated by the Hagbard Celines in this country makes one wonder whether the issue shouldn't be revisited.

but it was over unfair-taxation..not the slave issue..hard to swallow yeah...but a fact! now go bury hag...he is a actor in training!...lol

 

[archangel]

This is just dumb. If anything, the things liberals advocate GIVE people more rights. They don't diminish anything. Name one way your freedom has been "restricted" or "diminished" by liberals. By the way, this is the third time I've asked this question on this thread and no one has responded. Can't come up with anything? Hmmm. I wonder why.

were obviously asleep in 'Civil War' history 101! :2guns:

 

[Hagbard Celine]

When judges cite something, it means that they considered it in the making of their decisions.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg advocates the consideration of foreign law and has said so more than once. Others on the Court - that is, liberal Court justices - agree with her and have made similar statements.

Again, do you think it is right for Supreme Court judges to consider foreign laws in the making of their decisions on the Supreme Court of the United States? Is this the kind of "interpretation" of our Constitution that you advocate?

Yes, I think it's important to consider as many sources as possible when ruling on law. Taking foreign law into consideration doesn't change what the constitution says. And the constitution is what the justices use as the final litmus test.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

were obviously asleep in 'Civil War' history 101! :2guns:

What I said has nothing to do with Civil War history. I was responding to a comment musicman made about me and "liberals" in general. What I said about the Civil War was that it started because of many different factors. Do you refute that?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So you are stating that if every causasian and hispanic voted to bring back slavery, that would be ok?

Well, with the specific issue of slavery, no, because you would be effectively stealing people from other countries. I feel like you're trying to back me into some corner, so why don't we just skip the groping and ask me what you're trying to get at.

 

[musicman]

This is just dumb. If anything, the things liberals advocate GIVE people more rights.

No - liberals advocate giving CERTAIN people more rights, thus creating artificial, dependent constitutencies on the backs of productive Americans. Know this: Worldly power is a zero/sum game. You cannot "empower" one group without disenfranchising another.

Name one way your freedom has been "restricted" or "diminished" by liberals.

If my little community wishes to establish - according to majority rule - standards of right and wrong by which we wish to live, tough shit. The judiciary has already set NATIONAL POLICIES on matters that are none of its business.

By the way, this is the third time I've asked this question on this thread and no one has responded. Can't come up with anything? Hmmm. I wonder why.

You've been answered numerous times; you just refuse to hear.