Abortion is murder

[Campbell]

Then why aren't the authorities putting the doctors who perform them in prison or to death?

Your sotto voce statement is that the law is always correct.

Even you don't believe that.

In my lifetime the law and the courts have been about ten times more reliable than any other organization......'Course I'm just 82.

"In my lifetime the law and the courts have been about ten times more reliable than any other organization......'Course I'm just 82."

There is a suggestion here that you fail to understand either the courts or the Constitution.
It has become, sadly, what red and green lights are in Rome: merely a suggestion.




Let me give you just one glaring incident that took place during your 82 years....in fact, let's take the year you were born...1934.

The Supreme Court has upheld the confiscation and arbitrary revaluation of the price of gold, and the cancellation of mortgage debt…both plainly violations of the Constitution’s Contract Clause.

a. The Great Depression was a perfect opportunity for American socialists, interventionists, and advocates of omnipotent government to prevail in their long struggle against the advocates of economic liberty, free enterprise, and limited, constitutional government. FDR led the statists in using the economic crisis to level massive assaults on freedom and the Constitution. A good example of the kind of battles that were taking place at the state level is the 1934 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, in which the “Four Horsemen” — Supreme Court Justices George Sutherland, James C. McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism.

b. The Blaisdells, like so many other Americans in the early 1930s, lacked the money to make their mortgage payments. They defaulted and the bank foreclosed, selling the home at the foreclosure sale. The Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property. The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the constitutionality of the new redemption law, and the bank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

c. The Constitution states: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.


d. But what happens when an exercise of the police powers contradicts an express prohibition in the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, trumping both state legislatures and state courts?

That was the issue that confronted the U.S. Supreme Court in Blaisdell. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes set forth the applicable principles: “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved.

The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency.


e. In the old horse-and-buggy era, the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail. And society could no longer be bound by such quaint notions of constitutional limitations on state power, especially not during emergencies and especially not when the “good of all” depends on state action.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0302a.asp http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/economic-liberty-constitution-part-9/



Just one glaring example of how wrong the courts have been....and how wrong your post is.
One can only hope it's not too late for you to reform your thinking.

Be well.

I 'm well aware of the Hoover recession. You seem to have forgotten that if we had not slipped $780 billion to the banks at the end of George W. Bush's years they would have completely failed again. Two hot wars and a recession.....about par for Republicans.

 

[Campbell]

Then why aren't the authorities putting the doctors who perform them in prison or to death?

Your sotto voce statement is that the law is always correct.

Even you don't believe that.

It beats the hell out of whatever is in second place. This is not the wild west where they had to travel to the next town to get the marshall....you've been watching too much Gunsmoke.

 

[The Great Goose]

We live in an evil society, where psychopaths have us all fooled.

Disagreed. For that to be true, most people would have to be mostly evil and psychopaths....or completely stupid. Neither of which are true.

nope. Just a small number them have taken over the universities. From that pivotal position they control our culture.

 

[The Great Goose]

The one we are using. Just have less kids. It was working until those greedy cuckservatives imported all these extra people.

The maxim "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare" is a good one. This means mainly good sex education programs and inexpensive (not free) effective contraceptives.

Not sure what you mean about importing other people since a country with 1 person per square mile next to a country with 1000 people per square mile will, eventually, be a country with 500-1000 people per square mile. The population issues you brought up are global, not just national.

That's what walls are for.

 

[Divine Wind]

nope. Just a small number them have taken over the universities. From that pivotal position they control our culture.

Disagreed, but let's explore your theory. How do they control our culture? Students only attend for 1-6 years. Even if academia made them renounce the Constitution and burn a flag every week for good grades, when those young adults leave, they'll think for themselves. Usually more molded by their profession than a few years in academia.

 

[Divine Wind]

That's what walls are for.

Temporary solutions at best. Monuments to stupidity as Patton called them. Wouldn't it be smarter and cheaper to help resolve the reason agricultural and less sophisticated groups have so many children?

"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man."

 

[Divine Wind]

I 'm well aware of the Hoover recession. You seem to have forgotten that if we had not slipped $780 billion to the banks at the end of George W. Bush's years they would have completely failed again. Two hot wars and a recession.....about par for Republicans.

The Republicans certainly deserve blame, but to only blame the Republicans for all bad things is stupid. Hillary and Kerry supported going to war in Iraq even if they later flip-flopped on the matter. The Housing and Banking crises were set in motion years ago with the cooperation of both a majority of Democrats and Republicans albeit often for different reasons.

Playing the Blame Game may feel good, but it never resolves anything and often only results in stagnation with no resolutions implemented to fix problems.....you know, exactly like we have now in Congress.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then why aren't the authorities putting the doctors who perform them in prison or to death?

Your sotto voce statement is that the law is always correct.

Even you don't believe that.

In my lifetime the law and the courts have been about ten times more reliable than any other organization......'Course I'm just 82.

"In my lifetime the law and the courts have been about ten times more reliable than any other organization......'Course I'm just 82."

There is a suggestion here that you fail to understand either the courts or the Constitution.
It has become, sadly, what red and green lights are in Rome: merely a suggestion.




Let me give you just one glaring incident that took place during your 82 years....in fact, let's take the year you were born...1934.

The Supreme Court has upheld the confiscation and arbitrary revaluation of the price of gold, and the cancellation of mortgage debt…both plainly violations of the Constitution’s Contract Clause.

a. The Great Depression was a perfect opportunity for American socialists, interventionists, and advocates of omnipotent government to prevail in their long struggle against the advocates of economic liberty, free enterprise, and limited, constitutional government. FDR led the statists in using the economic crisis to level massive assaults on freedom and the Constitution. A good example of the kind of battles that were taking place at the state level is the 1934 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, in which the “Four Horsemen” — Supreme Court Justices George Sutherland, James C. McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism.

b. The Blaisdells, like so many other Americans in the early 1930s, lacked the money to make their mortgage payments. They defaulted and the bank foreclosed, selling the home at the foreclosure sale. The Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property. The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the constitutionality of the new redemption law, and the bank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

c. The Constitution states: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.


d. But what happens when an exercise of the police powers contradicts an express prohibition in the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, trumping both state legislatures and state courts?

That was the issue that confronted the U.S. Supreme Court in Blaisdell. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes set forth the applicable principles: “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved.

The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency.


e. In the old horse-and-buggy era, the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail. And society could no longer be bound by such quaint notions of constitutional limitations on state power, especially not during emergencies and especially not when the “good of all” depends on state action.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0302a.asp http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/economic-liberty-constitution-part-9/



Just one glaring example of how wrong the courts have been....and how wrong your post is.
One can only hope it's not too late for you to reform your thinking.

Be well.

I 'm well aware of the Hoover recession. You seem to have forgotten that if we had not slipped $780 billion to the banks at the end of George W. Bush's years they would have completely failed again. Two hot wars and a recession.....about par for Republicans.

The Roosevelt Depression has nothing to do with the post.

Clean off your specs, old timer....

Here, again is the proof of the the corruption of the Court:

The Constitution states: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then why aren't the authorities putting the doctors who perform them in prison or to death?

Your sotto voce statement is that the law is always correct.

Even you don't believe that.

It beats the hell out of whatever is in second place. This is not the wild west where they had to travel to the next town to get the marshall....you've been watching too much Gunsmoke.

It's the United States Constitution that you refer to as 'second place.'

A pity you don't understand that.

 

[The Great Goose]

That's what walls are for.

Temporary solutions at best. Monuments to stupidity as Patton called them. Wouldn't it be smarter and cheaper to help resolve the reason agricultural and less sophisticated groups have so many children?

"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man."

Well old blood and guts, Patton, would have preferred to shoot anyone who dared cross the border. It would be far more effective.

I agree with you.

 

[The Great Goose]

nope. Just a small number them have taken over the universities. From that pivotal position they control our culture.

Disagreed, but let's explore your theory. How do they control our culture? Students only attend for 1-6 years. Even if academia made them renounce the Constitution and burn a flag every week for good grades, when those young adults leave, they'll think for themselves. Usually more molded by their profession than a few years in academia.

It's not open to debate. It's an observable reality. Every one knows it.

 

[Redpath]

Others have surely made the obvious point that the woman's body is not yours, the choice is not yours.

This is the woman's business. Not yours.

 

[Redpath]

Don't give me this crap. I have been in a local children's hospital in which the lobby is chocked FULL of plaques and drawings and artwork created by deceased children .Killed by god's will under the guise of Cancer or other incurable diseases. So how is abortion so evil if god kills children with so much pain and suffering? Doesn't the Bible say" Suffer the little children..." ? God is a merciful loving god? It's hard to tell with all that mean hateful sadistic crap life deals out. God must be a child murdering sadist.

You are not God bitch . He gives them eternal life in paradise you only throw them in the garbage can or sell them piece by piece ...

You didn't answer her question.

Your "god" does a lot worse than abortions. Why is it okay for god to make innocent children sick, torture them with the worst pain imaginable and you actually worship him for that. Why is that okay?

Did your god teach you that nasty language?

 

[The Great Goose]

Others have surely made the obvious point that the woman's body is not yours, the choice is not yours.

This is the woman's business. Not yours.

Ad hominem.

 

[Campbell]

Then why aren't the authorities putting the doctors who perform them in prison or to death?

Your sotto voce statement is that the law is always correct.

Even you don't believe that.

In my lifetime the law and the courts have been about ten times more reliable than any other organization......'Course I'm just 82.

"In my lifetime the law and the courts have been about ten times more reliable than any other organization......'Course I'm just 82."

There is a suggestion here that you fail to understand either the courts or the Constitution.
It has become, sadly, what red and green lights are in Rome: merely a suggestion.




Let me give you just one glaring incident that took place during your 82 years....in fact, let's take the year you were born...1934.

The Supreme Court has upheld the confiscation and arbitrary revaluation of the price of gold, and the cancellation of mortgage debt…both plainly violations of the Constitution’s Contract Clause.

a. The Great Depression was a perfect opportunity for American socialists, interventionists, and advocates of omnipotent government to prevail in their long struggle against the advocates of economic liberty, free enterprise, and limited, constitutional government. FDR led the statists in using the economic crisis to level massive assaults on freedom and the Constitution. A good example of the kind of battles that were taking place at the state level is the 1934 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, in which the “Four Horsemen” — Supreme Court Justices George Sutherland, James C. McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism.

b. The Blaisdells, like so many other Americans in the early 1930s, lacked the money to make their mortgage payments. They defaulted and the bank foreclosed, selling the home at the foreclosure sale. The Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property. The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the constitutionality of the new redemption law, and the bank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

c. The Constitution states: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.


d. But what happens when an exercise of the police powers contradicts an express prohibition in the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, trumping both state legislatures and state courts?

That was the issue that confronted the U.S. Supreme Court in Blaisdell. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes set forth the applicable principles: “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved.

The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency.


e. In the old horse-and-buggy era, the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail. And society could no longer be bound by such quaint notions of constitutional limitations on state power, especially not during emergencies and especially not when the “good of all” depends on state action.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0302a.asp http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/economic-liberty-constitution-part-9/



Just one glaring example of how wrong the courts have been....and how wrong your post is.
One can only hope it's not too late for you to reform your thinking.

Be well.

I 'm well aware of the Hoover recession. You seem to have forgotten that if we had not slipped $780 billion to the banks at the end of George W. Bush's years they would have completely failed again. Two hot wars and a recession.....about par for Republicans.

The Roosevelt Depression has nothing to do with the post.

Clean off your specs, old timer....

Here, again is the proof of the the corruption of the Court:

The Constitution states: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.

You my friend sound exactly like the continuous stream of bull shit coming from Faux News.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your sotto voce statement is that the law is always correct.

Even you don't believe that.

In my lifetime the law and the courts have been about ten times more reliable than any other organization......'Course I'm just 82.

"In my lifetime the law and the courts have been about ten times more reliable than any other organization......'Course I'm just 82."

There is a suggestion here that you fail to understand either the courts or the Constitution.
It has become, sadly, what red and green lights are in Rome: merely a suggestion.




Let me give you just one glaring incident that took place during your 82 years....in fact, let's take the year you were born...1934.

The Supreme Court has upheld the confiscation and arbitrary revaluation of the price of gold, and the cancellation of mortgage debt…both plainly violations of the Constitution’s Contract Clause.

a. The Great Depression was a perfect opportunity for American socialists, interventionists, and advocates of omnipotent government to prevail in their long struggle against the advocates of economic liberty, free enterprise, and limited, constitutional government. FDR led the statists in using the economic crisis to level massive assaults on freedom and the Constitution. A good example of the kind of battles that were taking place at the state level is the 1934 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, in which the “Four Horsemen” — Supreme Court Justices George Sutherland, James C. McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism.

b. The Blaisdells, like so many other Americans in the early 1930s, lacked the money to make their mortgage payments. They defaulted and the bank foreclosed, selling the home at the foreclosure sale. The Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property. The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the constitutionality of the new redemption law, and the bank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

c. The Constitution states: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.


d. But what happens when an exercise of the police powers contradicts an express prohibition in the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, trumping both state legislatures and state courts?

That was the issue that confronted the U.S. Supreme Court in Blaisdell. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes set forth the applicable principles: “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved.

The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency.


e. In the old horse-and-buggy era, the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail. And society could no longer be bound by such quaint notions of constitutional limitations on state power, especially not during emergencies and especially not when the “good of all” depends on state action.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0302a.asp http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/economic-liberty-constitution-part-9/



Just one glaring example of how wrong the courts have been....and how wrong your post is.
One can only hope it's not too late for you to reform your thinking.

Be well.

I 'm well aware of the Hoover recession. You seem to have forgotten that if we had not slipped $780 billion to the banks at the end of George W. Bush's years they would have completely failed again. Two hot wars and a recession.....about par for Republicans.

The Roosevelt Depression has nothing to do with the post.

Clean off your specs, old timer....

Here, again is the proof of the the corruption of the Court:

The Constitution states: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.

You my friend sound exactly like the continuous stream of bull shit coming from Faux News.

I honor the Constitution...you honor the NYTimes.
And yet another difference between us...I never use profanity.

 

[ding]

Don't give me this crap. I have been in a local children's hospital in which the lobby is chocked FULL of plaques and drawings and artwork created by deceased children .Killed by god's will under the guise of Cancer or other incurable diseases. So how is abortion so evil if god kills children with so much pain and suffering? Doesn't the Bible say" Suffer the little children..." ? God is a merciful loving god? It's hard to tell with all that mean hateful sadistic crap life deals out. God must be a child murdering sadist.

You are not God bitch . He gives them eternal life in paradise you only throw them in the garbage can or sell them piece by piece ...

You didn't answer her question.

Your "god" does a lot worse than abortions. Why is it okay for god to make innocent children sick, torture them with the worst pain imaginable and you actually worship him for that. Why is that okay?

Did your god teach you that nasty language?

It appears that you are making a two wrongs makes a right argument.

 

[ding]

Your sotto voce statement is that the law is always correct.

Even you don't believe that.

In my lifetime the law and the courts have been about ten times more reliable than any other organization......'Course I'm just 82.

"In my lifetime the law and the courts have been about ten times more reliable than any other organization......'Course I'm just 82."

There is a suggestion here that you fail to understand either the courts or the Constitution.
It has become, sadly, what red and green lights are in Rome: merely a suggestion.




Let me give you just one glaring incident that took place during your 82 years....in fact, let's take the year you were born...1934.

The Supreme Court has upheld the confiscation and arbitrary revaluation of the price of gold, and the cancellation of mortgage debt…both plainly violations of the Constitution’s Contract Clause.

a. The Great Depression was a perfect opportunity for American socialists, interventionists, and advocates of omnipotent government to prevail in their long struggle against the advocates of economic liberty, free enterprise, and limited, constitutional government. FDR led the statists in using the economic crisis to level massive assaults on freedom and the Constitution. A good example of the kind of battles that were taking place at the state level is the 1934 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, in which the “Four Horsemen” — Supreme Court Justices George Sutherland, James C. McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism.

b. The Blaisdells, like so many other Americans in the early 1930s, lacked the money to make their mortgage payments. They defaulted and the bank foreclosed, selling the home at the foreclosure sale. The Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property. The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the constitutionality of the new redemption law, and the bank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

c. The Constitution states: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.


d. But what happens when an exercise of the police powers contradicts an express prohibition in the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, trumping both state legislatures and state courts?

That was the issue that confronted the U.S. Supreme Court in Blaisdell. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes set forth the applicable principles: “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved.

The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency.


e. In the old horse-and-buggy era, the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail. And society could no longer be bound by such quaint notions of constitutional limitations on state power, especially not during emergencies and especially not when the “good of all” depends on state action.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0302a.asp http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/economic-liberty-constitution-part-9/



Just one glaring example of how wrong the courts have been....and how wrong your post is.
One can only hope it's not too late for you to reform your thinking.

Be well.

I 'm well aware of the Hoover recession. You seem to have forgotten that if we had not slipped $780 billion to the banks at the end of George W. Bush's years they would have completely failed again. Two hot wars and a recession.....about par for Republicans.

The Roosevelt Depression has nothing to do with the post.

Clean off your specs, old timer....

Here, again is the proof of the the corruption of the Court:

The Constitution states: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.

You my friend sound exactly like the continuous stream of bull shit coming from Faux News.

In FDR we trust? Even FDR knew that socialism destroys the human spirit.

"The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

1 - Annual Message to Congress
January 4, 1935

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Annual Message to Congress

 

[ding]

Others have surely made the obvious point that the woman's body is not yours, the choice is not yours.

This is the woman's business. Not yours.

The life the woman is choosing to end is not her life. At least that's what DNA proves.

 

[ding]

...One person killing a separate, discrete, and unique individual is murder.

Agreed. What makes a zygote a "separate, discrete, and unique individual"? It's just a cell. Sure, it has the potential to become a person, but most self-abort. Some are stillborn. Who is responsible for the self-abortions and stillbirths? God? The woman? If a woman has a stillborn baby should she be charged with murder?

No. It is not just a cell. It is a human being in its earliest stage of human development.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981