Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Eating paint chips leads to blindness, of which you are.
Prostitution sting nets 31 arrests
Hmmmm, both the prostitute and the johns were arrested
Google is your friend I suggest using it instead of relying on that pea sized brain
Guy, you had to go back SIX YEARS to find a case where someone bothered to arrest hookers.
Now, if you care to google yourself, you find hundreds and hundreds.
You are dense, aren't you
Now, if you care to google yourself, you find hundreds and hundreds.
You are dense, aren't you
Okay, the first case involved trafficked minors, not adult prostitutes... So that was an argument fail.
The second one was "misdemeanor" busts....
I can see why you want others to do your work for you.
Mathews did not put words in his mouth...I can't think of any other crime anywhere that follows the logic that something is illegal but the person participating in it is not punished. Trump, knowing nothing about the Republican stance, got caught in that corner with Matthews putting words in his mouth. I might have guessed the same way, in an attempt to take laws to their logical conclusion. Of course, there is nothing logical about the abortion issue either way. I'm a pro-choicer and IF I were a Trump fan, I certainly wouldn't worry about him changing the laws. He's not interested in it one way or the other.He wasn't damned either wayMatthews put him in a position where in order to answer the question, he was damned either way. Trump, for all his faults, tends not to equivocate and blather on without answering the question like most politicians do. So what is he supposed to say--if someone is theoretically breaking the law, that person should theoretically be punished, yes? Matthews was being a total asshole--I've never seen him before, but I'll sure make a mental note not to in the future, either. He reminds me of a defense attorney who used to try putting words in my mouth on the stand all the time.Then why did he totally walk it back? Hint: because he got a shitload of blowback - even from anti-abortion groups.
Who cares? It was a loaded question. But of course the left loons became unhinged over it...it's more BS
He can't even handle pressure from Chris Matthews - so just imagine him with Putin. Trump's a choker.
All he needed to do was state that he did not think women who get abortions should be punished......not hard really
You guys want to arrest my wife for having an abortion?
Well, you might as well cancel the election and start the inauguration planning for President Hillary Clinton.
Damn, you guys are making this WAY too easy....
Exactly! So why did he walk it back and why are all the conservatives demonizing him for that statement? It's total political candyland hypocrisy.Are there any pro life conservatives that agree with Trumps original assertion? If Abortion was illegal, should the woman be punished?
How could you not agree? If it's illegal, the act is a crime, if it's a crime, there must be criminals. Anyone who willingly participates in a crime are subject to criminal punishment.
Not rocket science
How about politicsNo one cares what you think. You're inconsequential. On the other hand, Trump is running for president and making women his enemies. Not too bright. That's the point.So?Hmmm... outlaw abortions and throw women in jail.
Now there's a winning platform to run on for a misogynist running against a woman for president of the United States.
They would also throw men in jail as well.
Or did you not think of that?
Trump's dream is to outlaw abortion and throw women in jail. Do you even fathom why 70% of women have an unfavorable opinion of Trump?
Can you understand why he's going to get schlonged in an election against Hillary since most voters in presidential elections tend to be women?
So?
I've not taken a position as to rather or not it should be illegal or not.
Instead I've chosen to show the hypocricy of trying to make it illegal and then (cake and eat it too) attempting to say "but the woman would NOT face criminal liability"
That's not how our justice system works.
Any willing participant in any crime is criminally liable.
Now rape, incest or life of mother could be exceptions due to duress. But elective abortions? NOT A CHANCE.
I didn't post opinion. I posted fact on how our judicial system works.
Prove me wrong.
Name another criminal offense in which those that willfully participate in the act are not held criminally liable.
Agreed, and to take it a step further the "murder" cries from the pro life movement don't hold water if they don't also support a punishment for the act of murder. They have a very frail argument which should be focused toward better education and healthcare rather than outlawing abortingArresting women for having abortions is logically sound but polically untenable.
You have to go back to the reasons and emotions that lead a woman to have an abortion. Once you understands, you would realize arresting the woman is very unpopular. The prolife argument can be lost if they advocate arresting the woman.
You're such an idiot... Playing little gotcha word games isn't gonna get much respect for your ideas. There is usually meaning and purpose behind people's statements. Most of us understand the meaning of what they are saying and react to that. nice try thoughHillary Clinton just overturned Roe vs. Wade
TomHoefling.com ^ | 4/3/2016 | Tom Hoefling
For decades we've heard Republicans and Democrats tell us that we have to somehow "overturn Roe vs. Wade" in order to stop the abortion holocaust.
In the first place, there's nothing to "overturn." Roe was not a law. It was an arbitrary, unconstitutional, lawless court opinion delivered by a handful of oath-breaking, unprincipled, usurping judges -- men who have all already gone on to meet the Supreme Judge of the Universe to explain exactly why they did what they did. Their mere opinion, in one particular case, which opened the door to one of the largest mass murders in human history, is, and always has been, completely null and void, by every natural law, constitutional principle upon which this republic was founded.
However, even by the corrupt standards of the decision itself, the decision has already been overturned.
By whom?
By the current leader of the pro-abortion forces in this country, Hillary Clinton.
From the written opinion itself:
"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."
-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973
That's right. Roe turned completely on whether or not the unborn child is a person.
And yesterday, Hillary Clinton finally faced up to the truth of the matter and established that indeed, the unborn child is a person.
"The unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights," she said. (VIDEO)
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
-- The Constitution of the United States
In fact, if they are a person, as she now admits to be the case, they do have God-given, unalienable, constitutional rights. End of the story. Even the infamous Blackmun court admitted as much.
Do you have a point. You asked for arrests, I gave you three stings that involved several dozen individuals.
So, have you come up with a single criminal offense in which willing participants are not charged with a crime yet?
Or are you going to continue to act the fool?
Do you have a point. You asked for arrests, I gave you three stings that involved several dozen individuals.
So, have you come up with a single criminal offense in which willing participants are not charged with a crime yet?
Or are you going to continue to act the fool?
i could explain the point to you and you still wouldn't understand it.
the point is, arrests for prostitution are RARE. Punishments are rarer still. (I asked for punishments, not arrests, but never mind.) So while you cream in your jeans at the thought of arresting ladies for having abortions (a plan Trump ran from faster than an ex-wife with a good lawyer), the fact is, such a law would be unenforceable.
Exactly! So why did he walk it back and why are all the conservatives demonizing him for that statement? It's total political candyland hypocrisy.Are there any pro life conservatives that agree with Trumps original assertion? If Abortion was illegal, should the woman be punished?
How could you not agree? If it's illegal, the act is a crime, if it's a crime, there must be criminals. Anyone who willingly participates in a crime are subject to criminal punishment.
Not rocket science
Then you missed my point from the very beginning, that being
When deciding who one should vote for, if one is using the abortion issue as a basis, the idea that you can punish only the doctor is ridiculous under our criminal law system.
Anyone believing that is being willfully stupid. It's just not how the system works.
Do we really want to be one of Donald trumps ex wives 6 years from now?Note: "If it were banned in America"......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Then why did he totally walk it back? Hint: because he got a shitload of blowback - even from anti-abortion groups.
Then you missed my point from the very beginning, that being
When deciding who one should vote for, if one is using the abortion issue as a basis, the idea that you can punish only the doctor is ridiculous under our criminal law system.
Anyone believing that is being willfully stupid. It's just not how the system works.
But that's exactly how it DID work before 1973. Women were never prosecuted for having abortions.
Similarly, when they put Kermit Gosnell on trial for 'murder" because he didn't dispose of his medical waste properly, they didn't indict ONE WOMAN who knowingly went to his clinic at 24 weeks plus and had a late term abortion.
the problem with the whole anti-choice crowd is that they think women are capable of preventing pregnancy with 100% accuracy, but have no culpability in deciding whether to end one.
or they are savvy enough to realize the first time you put a woman in the dock for ending a pregnancy, you are going to have a public outcry so loud it will drown out anything else.
Tonnes of baby flesh? That's pretty crass and horific, Playtime.[/QUOTE][QUOTme s of baby flesh.E="playtime, post: 13911202, member: 55512"]I know heaps of people who have.Abortion is a very complicated issue.
Well no shit sherlock. ever have one? know anybody who has? don't try to patronize me sweetheart, cause it won't fly.
'heaps' huh? you sure it wasn't 'tons'?
yes, sadly, i think it can be measured in tonage.
I'm having a hard time believing that, but for the sake of argument, let's say that is true. anybody who has 'regretted' it & thought they were 'lied' to, is not a reason or excuse to make that decision illegal to those women who are intelligent enough to make an informed decision, & are very grateful that they aren't shackled by those that want to control the uterus' of another. I have been 'in the know' concerning why abortion was chosen to be the solution in a few instances for real. and each one was for a different reason & I would NEVER tell a female why she cannot decide for herself whether she wants to terminate a pregnancy,& that she would be punished for it if she does abort.
Do we really want to be one of Donald trumps ex wives 6 years from now?Note: "If it were banned in America"......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Then why did he totally walk it back? Hint: because he got a shitload of blowback - even from anti-abortion groups.
Didn't Marla maples make the same mistake Republicans are making? They can't see what things will really be like after the honeymoon is over.
