Pro Life Pro Gun Democrat

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,839
Reaction score
12,603
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Does anybody know of any pro-life/pro-gun democrat that has the capacity to run for president.
Every Democrat is pro-life – that he respects and defends a woman’s right to privacy doesn’t change that.

And to support firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law is not to be ‘anti-gun.’

Advocacy of such laws might be wrongheaded given their questionable efficacy, but they neither violate the Second Amendment nor deny citizens the lawful possession of guns.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,839
Reaction score
12,603
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Does anybody know of any pro-life/pro-gun democrat that has the capacity to run for president.
There is no such thing as pro life anti abortion if one believes in the constitution which all Democrats do. I know a lot of pro gun democrat's. They hunt and carry a pistol for their safety.
Correct.

Democrats own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and carry firearms for personal protection.

And it’s perfectly appropriate to oppose abortion while acknowledging the Constitution’s guarantee of a right to privacy, prohibiting the states from seeking to compel women to give birth against their will through force of law.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,839
Reaction score
12,603
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Does anybody know of any pro-life/pro-gun democrat that has the capacity to run for president.
There is no such thing as pro life anti abortion if one believes in the constitution which all Democrats do. I know a lot of pro gun democrat's. They hunt and carry a pistol for their safety.
How can someone be a gun owner and be a democrat?
There is no restrictions when you buy a gun based on party affiliation.
You think I should consider you serious about this thread with a bullshit comment like that? What in the hell that that even mean?
Your question was stupid, ignorant, and ridiculous – you got the response you deserved.

Your idiotic question was:

“How can someone be a gun owner and be a democrat [sic]?”

There is nothing about being a Democrat that precludes him from owning a gun.

Indeed, Democrats respect and defend Second Amendment case law – they recognize the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that it is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose, and that government has the authority to place limits and restriction on the possession and commercial sales of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Respecting and defending Second Amendment case law – you and others on the right should try it sometime.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
75,817
Reaction score
7,176
Points
1,855
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Does anybody know of any pro-life/pro-gun democrat that has the capacity to run for president.
There is no such thing as pro life anti abortion if one believes in the constitution which all Democrats do. I know a lot of pro gun democrat's. They hunt and carry a pistol for their safety.
How can someone be a gun owner and be a democrat?
There is no restrictions when you buy a gun based on party affiliation.
You think I should consider you serious about this thread with a bullshit comment like that? What in the hell that that even mean?
Your question was stupid, ignorant, and ridiculous – you got the response you deserved.

Your idiotic question was:

“How can someone be a gun owner and be a democrat [sic]?”

There is nothing about being a Democrat that precludes him from owning a gun.

Indeed, Democrats respect and defend Second Amendment case law – they recognize the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that it is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose, and that government has the authority to place limits and restriction on the possession and commercial sales of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Respecting and defending Second Amendment case law – you and others on the right should try it sometime.
You're one ignorant bastard.
Why would someone support the group that wants to CONFISCATE your property dumbass?
 

Monk-Eye

Silver Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,194
Reaction score
105
Points
95
" More Shadow Puppet Fluff "

* Acute Awareness Of Innuendo *
I offered NO proposal to revise the 14th Amendment. You're not paying attention.
The notation was an indication that revising us 14th amendment was the only option to possibly making it less logical that abortion is legal .

As with previous discussions about abortion , just because a wright is not enumerated in us constitution does not mean it does not exist .

In answer to anti-federalists pandering entitlements to dictate from the state , the us 9th amendment precedes the us 10th amendment to ensure it is understood that individual wights supersede those of states wrights and that includes whether one chooses to end a pregnancy .

* Let Us Quote A Witless Errand Boy *
George Bush went off on rant one time and said the "Constitution isn't anything, but goddamn piece of paper."
The entire bush family has been on their knees blowing the saudi family while it floods the global community with cash from its terrorist slush fund .

Afflicted with a typical love hate relationship for the us first amendment , the bush was too incompetent to demand that at least some style of us first amendment be added to the iraq constitution to rectify a global and regional mental degenerates .

* Good Luck With That *
My view is, that statement is true and accurate as the 14th Amendment illegally nullified the Bill of Rights and Congress nor the president since has had the moral courage to denounce that tyrannical and gross miscarriage of justice.
If you believe yourself correct , follow legal recourse and file a lawsuit instead of doing nothing and using poor excuses to feign the high ground on whether abortion should be illegal according to the constitution or ethics .
 

Porter Rockwell

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
661
Points
140
" More Shadow Puppet Fluff "

* Acute Awareness Of Innuendo *
I offered NO proposal to revise the 14th Amendment. You're not paying attention.
The notation was an indication that revising us 14th amendment was the only option to possibly making it less logical that abortion is legal .

As with previous discussions about abortion , just because a wright is not enumerated in us constitution does not mean it does not exist .

In answer to anti-federalists pandering entitlements to dictate from the state , the us 9th amendment precedes the us 10th amendment to ensure it is understood that individual wights supersede those of states wrights and that includes whether one chooses to end a pregnancy .

* Let Us Quote A Witless Errand Boy *
George Bush went off on rant one time and said the "Constitution isn't anything, but goddamn piece of paper."
The entire bush family has been on their knees blowing the saudi family while it floods the global community with cash from its terrorist slush fund .

Afflicted with a typical love hate relationship for the us first amendment , the bush was too incompetent to demand that at least some style of us first amendment be added to the iraq constitution to rectify a global and regional mental degenerates .

* Good Luck With That *
My view is, that statement is true and accurate as the 14th Amendment illegally nullified the Bill of Rights and Congress nor the president since has had the moral courage to denounce that tyrannical and gross miscarriage of justice.
If you believe yourself correct , follow legal recourse and file a lawsuit instead of doing nothing and using poor excuses to feign the high ground on whether abortion should be illegal according to the constitution or ethics .
Wights, Wrights??? Do you expect to be taken seriously? You don't know basic English. Where do you trolls come from?

Just to give you a legal lesson: One must have legal standing in order to go to court. On abortion, I have no legal standing. On the illegality of the 14th Amendment, there is no organization fighting the damn thing and I've blew all the hundreds of thousands into educating people that I can afford to.
 

Monk-Eye

Silver Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,194
Reaction score
105
Points
95
" Opposing Nomian Legalism From The Is Them "

* Applying The Crux Of Arguments With A Single Word *
Wights, Wrights??? Do you expect to be taken seriously? You don't know basic English. Where do you trolls come from?
Certainly , and opportunities to address validity for application and use of the term wright , or rite , or right , write , is always goaded and purposeful .

The term wright alludes to craftsmen , such that a ship wright crafts ships , such that a legal wright crafts legalism , and both legal positivism and perspictivism support that use of the term wrights is more valid than use of the term rights .

Legal positivism - Wikipedia
Legal positivism is a school of thought of analytical jurisprudence largely developed by legal thinkers in the 18th and 19th centuries, such as Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. While Bentham and Austin developed legal positivist theory, empiricism set the theoretical foundations for such developments to occur. The most prominent legal positivist writer in English has been H. L. A. Hart, who, in 1958, found common usages of "positivism" as applied to law to include the contentions that:

  • laws are commands of human beings;
  • there is no necessary connection between law and morality, that is, between law as it is and as it ought to be;
  • analysis (or study of the meaning) of legal concepts is worthwhile and is to be distinguished from history or sociology of law, as well as from criticism or appraisal of law, for example with regard to its moral value or to its social aims or functions;
  • a legal system is a closed, logical system in which correct decisions can be deduced from predetermined legal rules without reference to social considerations;
  • moral judgments, unlike statements of fact, cannot be established or defended by rational argument, evidence, or proof ("noncognitivism" in ethics).[1]

Historically, legal positivism sits in opposition to natural law's theories of jurisprudence, with particular disagreement surrounding the natural lawyer's claim that there is a necessary connection between law and morality.

Perspectivism - Wikipedia
There are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.

Perspectivism rejects objective metaphysics, claiming that no evaluation of objectivity can transcend cultural formations or subjective designations.[1] Therefore, there are no objective facts, nor any knowledge of a thing-in-itself. Truth is separated from any particular vantage point, and so there are no ethical or epistemological absolutes.[2] Rules (i.e., those of philosophy, the scientific method, etc.) are constantly reassessed according to the circumstances of individual perspectives.[3] "Truth" is thus created by integrating different vantage points together.

People always adopt perspectives by default – whether they are aware of it or not – and the concepts of one's existence are defined by the circumstances surrounding that individual. Truth is made by and for individuals and peoples.[4] This view differs from many types of relativism which consider the truth of a particular proposition as something that altogether cannot be evaluated with respect to an "absolute truth", without taking into consideration culture and context.[5]


* Defining Socially Normal *

One may consider the term right is commonly referred as a perpendicular to a surface , at a 90 degree angle , at a right angle , which is more generally understood as a mathematical norm - Norm (mathematics) - Wikipedia .

One might propose that a law is analogous with a norm and suggest therefore that application of the term right is more valid than an application of the term wright to describe laws .

Ultimately , however , use of the term wright serves a very specific purpose of dissociating a pretense that a right is an absolute truth ( nomian ) rather than a right being a social norm crafted by mammon .

* Seed On Rocky Ground *
Just to give you a legal lesson: One must have legal standing in order to go to court. On abortion, I have no legal standing. On the illegality of the 14th Amendment, there is no organization fighting the damn thing and I've blew all the hundreds of thousands into educating people that I can afford to.
Many have been working to succeed here Would A Legal Challenge of Subject To Contract Clause Of Us 14th Amendment Succeed ? .
 
Last edited:

Porter Rockwell

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
661
Points
140
" Opposing Nomian Legalism From The Is Them "

* Applying The Crux Of Arguments With A Single Word *
Wights, Wrights??? Do you expect to be taken seriously? You don't know basic English. Where do you trolls come from?
Certainly , and opportunities to address validity for application and use of the term wright , or rite , or right , write , is always goaded and purposeful .

The term wright alludes to craftsmen , such that a ship wright crafts ships , such that a legal wright crafts legalism , and both legal positivism and perspictivism support that use of the term wrights is more valid than use of the term rights .

Legal positivism - Wikipedia
Legal positivism is a school of thought of analytical jurisprudence largely developed by legal thinkers in the 18th and 19th centuries, such as Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. While Bentham and Austin developed legal positivist theory, empiricism set the theoretical foundations for such developments to occur. The most prominent legal positivist writer in English has been H. L. A. Hart, who, in 1958, found common usages of "positivism" as applied to law to include the contentions that:

  • laws are commands of human beings;
  • there is no necessary connection between law and morality, that is, between law as it is and as it ought to be;
  • analysis (or study of the meaning) of legal concepts is worthwhile and is to be distinguished from history or sociology of law, as well as from criticism or appraisal of law, for example with regard to its moral value or to its social aims or functions;
  • a legal system is a closed, logical system in which correct decisions can be deduced from predetermined legal rules without reference to social considerations;
  • moral judgments, unlike statements of fact, cannot be established or defended by rational argument, evidence, or proof ("noncognitivism" in ethics).[1]

Historically, legal positivism sits in opposition to natural law's theories of jurisprudence, with particular disagreement surrounding the natural lawyer's claim that there is a necessary connection between law and morality.

Perspectivism - Wikipedia
There are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.

Perspectivism rejects objective metaphysics, claiming that no evaluation of objectivity can transcend cultural formations or subjective designations.[1] Therefore, there are no objective facts, nor any knowledge of a thing-in-itself. Truth is separated from any particular vantage point, and so there are no ethical or epistemological absolutes.[2] Rules (i.e., those of philosophy, the scientific method, etc.) are constantly reassessed according to the circumstances of individual perspectives.[3] "Truth" is thus created by integrating different vantage points together.

People always adopt perspectives by default – whether they are aware of it or not – and the concepts of one's existence are defined by the circumstances surrounding that individual. Truth is made by and for individuals and peoples.[4] This view differs from many types of relativism which consider the truth of a particular proposition as something that altogether cannot be evaluated with respect to an "absolute truth", without taking into consideration culture and context.[5]


* Defining Socially Normal *

One may consider the term right is commonly referred as a perpendicular to a surface , at a 90 degree angle , at a right angle , which is more generally understood as a mathematical norm - Norm (mathematics) - Wikipedia .

One might propose that a law is analogous with a norm and suggest therefore that application of the term right is more valid than an application of the term wright to describe laws .

Ultimately , however , use of the term wright serves a very specific purpose of dissociating a pretense that a right is an absolute truth ( nomian ) rather than a right being a social norm crafted by mammon .

* Seed On Rocky Ground *
Just to give you a legal lesson: One must have legal standing in order to go to court. On abortion, I have no legal standing. On the illegality of the 14th Amendment, there is no organization fighting the damn thing and I've blew all the hundreds of thousands into educating people that I can afford to.
Many have been working to succeed here Would A Legal Challenge of Subject To Contract Clause Of Us 14th Amendment Succeed ? .
Boring drivel with NO relevance
 

Monk-Eye

Silver Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,194
Reaction score
105
Points
95
" Contention Over Reference To The Term Natural "

* Common Political Lexicon Contesting Moral Relativity *
Boring drivel with NO relevance
Such a response would be expected of any unaware for distinctions between pundits of natural law and pundits of legal positivism .

The foundations of " natural rights ( sic ) " are constructed from references to theism , while foundations of legal positivism are constructed from references to perspectivism .

Natural law - Wikipedia
Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is law that is held to exist independently of the positive law of a given political order, society or nation-state. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be objective and universal;[1] it exists independently of human understanding, and of the positive law of a given state, political order, legislature or society at large. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior from nature's or God's creation of reality and mankind.

Legal positivism - Wikipedia
Historically, legal positivism sits in opposition to natural law's theories of jurisprudence, with particular disagreement surrounding the natural lawyer's claim that there is a necessary connection between law and morality.
 

Porter Rockwell

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
661
Points
140
" Contention Over Reference To The Term Natural "

* Common Political Lexicon Contesting Moral Relativity *
Boring drivel with NO relevance
Such a response would be expected of any unaware for distinctions between pundits of natural law and pundits of legal positivism .

The foundations of " natural rights ( sic ) " are constructed from references to theism , while foundations of legal positivism are constructed from references to perspectivism .

Natural law - Wikipedia
Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is law that is held to exist independently of the positive law of a given political order, society or nation-state. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be objective and universal;[1] it exists independently of human understanding, and of the positive law of a given state, political order, legislature or society at large. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior from nature's or God's creation of reality and mankind.

Legal positivism - Wikipedia
Historically, legal positivism sits in opposition to natural law's theories of jurisprudence, with particular disagreement surrounding the natural lawyer's claim that there is a necessary connection between law and morality.
By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
 

Monk-Eye

Silver Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,194
Reaction score
105
Points
95
" Certain That Nothing Is Guaranteed "

* On Both Rails Of One Track *
By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}
The citations are accurate for theories on the current definition of " natural law " as it relates to " natural rights ( sic ) " .

* Subjective Differences For Design *
The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
My suppositions for attributes of individual liberty are self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) and self determination ( private property , willful intents ) .

Perspectivism cedes there to be multiple truths and that one truth may be more valid than an other truth .

Given evidence of entropy and relativism within nature , to allege any complex system cannot be alienated must be a disingenuous effort to promote foolishness .
 

Porter Rockwell

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
661
Points
140
" Certain That Nothing Is Guaranteed "

* On Both Rails Of One Track *
By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}
The citations are accurate for theories on the current definition of " natural law " as it relates to " natural rights ( sic ) " .

* Subjective Differences For Design *
The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
My suppositions for attributes of individual liberty are self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) and self determination ( private property , willful intents ) .

Perspectivism cedes there to be multiple truths and that one truth may be more valid than an other truth .

Given evidence of entropy and relativism within nature , to allege any complex system cannot be alienated must be a disingenuous effort to promote foolishness .
So you try to claim a monopoly on human virtue by babbling nonsense to make it appear there is some deep meaning behind your personal ideology? Save it. Let me simplify this for you:

Beating heart = Life
 

Monk-Eye

Silver Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,194
Reaction score
105
Points
95
" Reflections On Myopic Vanity Of Sanctimonious Hubris "

* Egalitarian Democracy Verses Representative Republic *
So you try to claim a monopoly on human virtue by babbling nonsense to make it appear there is some deep meaning behind your personal ideology? Save it. Let me simplify this for you:
Beating heart = Life
To make it clearer , cognizance is a plausible standard , a distinct truth , whereby perspectivism inquires , " Which is a more valid truth by which to set public policy , autonomic or cognizant ? " .

Individuals are responsible for self ownership and that include its exercise through progeny .

A bureaucratic collective representing some greater individual would be violating self ownership of individualism if as a state it were to dictate choices for progeny to individuals .


* Fiscal Buffoonery *

In one estimate , approximately 75% of abortions were requested by those between 0% and 200% of the poverty line , which are perhaps individuals less likely to self manage birth control behavior leading to unwanted pregnancies ; and the abortions are elective decisions given socioeconomic constraints .

Who do anti-choice pundits believe will pay for social expenses related with mandates into poverty ; damned straight - the taxpayer !

As per Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia , " ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " is remanded of bureaucratic collective institutions .

It being that a fetus is without constitutional protections , it not having met a qualifying criteria for equal protection - birth , a fetus is private property of the mother ; therefore , which evidence is available as justification for a state to barter over a fetus as private property ?

Is a war of attrition or some numerical incidence of under representation ensuing ?


* Non Nomian Practices *

Simple facts are that practicing what one preaches often requires that one understand what one is actually preaching .

Non Nomian Truth Or Consequences Constructed Qurayshism Crossed Logic
 
Last edited:

Porter Rockwell

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
661
Points
140
" Reflections On Myopic Vanity Of Sanctimonious Hubris "

* Egalitarian Democracy Verses Representative Republic *
So you try to claim a monopoly on human virtue by babbling nonsense to make it appear there is some deep meaning behind your personal ideology? Save it. Let me simplify this for you:
Beating heart = Life
To make it clearer , cognizance is a plausible standard , a distinct truth , whereby perspectivism inquires , " Which is a more valid truth by which to set public policy , autonomic or cognizant ? " .

Individuals are responsible for self ownership and that include its exercise through progeny .

A bureaucratic collective representing some greater individual would be violating self ownership of individualism if as a state it were to dictate choices for progeny to individuals .


* Fiscal Buffoonery *

In one estimate , approximately 75% of abortions were requested by those between 0% and 200% of the poverty line , which are perhaps individuals less likely to self manage birth control behavior leading to unwanted pregnancies ; and the abortions are elective decisions given socioeconomic constraints .

Who do anti-choice pundits believe will pay for social expenses related with mandates into poverty ; damned straight - the taxpayer !

As per Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia , " ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " is remanded of bureaucratic collective institutions .

It being that a fetus is without constitutional protections , it not having met a qualifying criteria for equal protection - birth , a fetus is private property of the mother ; therefore , which evidence is available as justification for a state to barter over a fetus as private property ?

Is a war of attrition or some numerical incidence of under representation ensuing ?


* Non Nomian Practices *

Simple facts are that practicing what one preaches often requires that one understand what one is actually preaching .

Non Nomian Truth Or Consequences Constructed Qurayshism Crossed Logic
Trump seems to believe that the United States Supreme Court will revisit Roe v. Wade and apply a different standard. I don't know if I will accept their reasoning, but it will as vague and deflective as your posts are.
 

Monk-Eye

Silver Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,194
Reaction score
105
Points
95
" Live And Let Live "

* Succinct And Invective *
Trump seems to believe that the United States Supreme Court will revisit Roe v. Wade and apply a different standard. I don't know if I will accept their reasoning, but it will as vague and deflective as your posts are.
Good luck getting around blackmum majority opinion for roe v wade , "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .

There are many pro-choice republicans and there are many pro-choice democrats who disagree with ideological absurdities of other democrat party members .
 
Last edited:

Porter Rockwell

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
661
Points
140
" Live And Let Live "

* Succinct And Invective *
Trump seems to believe that the United States Supreme Court will revisit Roe v. Wade and apply a different standard. I don't know if I will accept their reasoning, but it will as vague and deflective as your posts are.
Good luck getting around blackmum majority opinion for roe v wade , "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .

There are many pro-choice republicans and there are many pro-choice democrats who disagree with ideological absurdities of other democrat party members .
It won't be my opinion to make.
 

Monk-Eye

Silver Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,194
Reaction score
105
Points
95
" Opining For Representation "

* Disseminating Persuasion *
It won't be my opinion to make.
The court of public opinion relies upon informed consent .

Neither the right nor the left will challenge to debate the actual constitutional basis of roe v wade and the legality of abortion , as it is too much of a challenge for their base - beyond the forte of either , and each is comfortable with its insulated conventions of poorly articulated and insufficiently decisive narratives .
 

Porter Rockwell

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
661
Points
140
" Opining For Representation "

* Disseminating Persuasion *
It won't be my opinion to make.
The court of public opinion relies upon informed consent .

Neither the right nor the left will challenge to debate the actual constitutional basis of roe v wade and the legality of abortion , as it is too much of a challenge for their base - beyond the forte of either , and each is comfortable with its insulated conventions of poorly articulated and insufficiently decisive narratives .
Did you convey something other than an opinion?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top