The truth emerges. Oil tanker seized outside Venezuela.

How do you conclude from my post I hate America? Do you support the government no matter what, as long as potus is an R?
I support the government when it acts in accordance with what I support.

So now that the DODGE has been addressed, back to my Post # 516 question >> "Upon what do you base that statement ?"
 
I support the government when it acts in accordance with what I support.

So now that the DODGE has been addressed, back to my Post # 516 question >> "Upon what do you base that statement ?"
gipper is a demafasict he can’t mentally comprehend the idea of govt and country being seperate entities and how one can love their country and disapprove of their govt
 
Look up Gary Webb. Then research US actions on the poppy fields in Afghanistan.
So you say someone named Gary Webb is pushing opiates, and this means the US government is pushing illegal drugs ?

I'm referring back to my question to you (as you should be doing too)
 
There is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to tell the citizen what he may or may not ingest. If you believe there is, I would appreciate your citing that part.
There does not HAVE TO BE something in the Constitution for the federal government to tell the citizen what he may or may not ingest. There are simply LAWS that do that, seperate form the Constitution, just as there are THOUSANDS of laws apart from the Constitution that do the same thing.
 

It wasn't just in Detroit either.



When it benefits us, it's OK.

Or when it benefits the president.

Are you capable of answering a question ?
 
There does not HAVE TO BE something in the Constitution for the federal government to tell the citizen what he may or may not ingest. There are simply LAWS that do that, seperate form the Constitution, just as there are THOUSANDS of laws apart from the Constitution that do the same thing.
So, if the federal government passed a law which said everyone must consume the daily recommended amount of vegetables every day, that would be constitutional?
 
So you say someone named Gary Webb is pushing opiates, and this means the US government is pushing illegal drugs ?

I'm referring back to my question to you (as you should be doing too)
Gary Webb was a journalist that exposed the CIAs deals with contras as the coke trade in the 80s

He killed himself in 2004, so not sure how he thinks he has anything to do with Afghan
 
So, if the federal government passed a law which said everyone must consume the daily recommended amount of vegetables every day, that would be constitutional?
Unless there's something in the constitution that says otherwise. If you know if such a thing, let's hear it.
 
Gary Webb was a journalist that exposed the CIAs deals with contras as the coke trade in the 80s

He killed himself in 2004, so not sure how he thinks he has anything to do with Afghan
An accusation aimed at the CIA which had no evidence in support.
 
Unless there's something in the constitution that says otherwise. If you know if such a thing, let's hear it.
You honestly think the federal government can tell you what your daily diet must consist of?


The federal government generally
cannot compel individuals to purchase specific food items, as that infringes on personal choice and the Constitution,

While the government regulates food extensively (safety, labeling), compelling individuals to buy specific food items, beyond promoting public health through broader policy, runs into significant constitutional hurdles concerning individual freedom and governmental overreach.
 
So, if the federal government passed a law which said everyone must consume the daily recommended amount of vegetables every day, that would be constitutional?
No the SCOTUS has said there is a right of autonomy…via the 14th amendment due process clause giving people a right to liberty, which includes personal choices like what they eat

But you could also see that right in the 9th amendment
 
An accusation aimed at the CIA which had no evidence in support.
Actually they’re was tons of evidence and in fact investigations that found, not all the claims were true, but there was some very troubling evidence

I have no doubt the CIA turned a blind eye to many things, but they are certainly not responsible for the crack epidemic in LA or anywhere else that was claimed in the book
 
So, if the federal government passed a law which said everyone must consume the daily recommended amount of vegetables every day, that would be constitutional?

No the SCOTUS has said there is a right of autonomy…via the 14th amendment due process clause giving people a right to liberty, which includes personal choices like what they eat

But you could also see that right in the 9th amendment
The person I addressed that question to says you’re wrong.
 
15th post
Actually they’re was tons of evidence and in fact investigations that found, not all the claims were true, but there was some very troubling evidence

I have no doubt the CIA turned a blind eye to many things, but they are certainly not responsible for the crack epidemic in LA or anywhere else that was claimed in the book
There was no evidence that the CIA was involved in drug trafficking
 
There was no evidence that the CIA was involved in drug trafficking
I didn’t say there was

What there is, is evidence they knew about it, knew what was happening, and allowed it
 
I’ll admit to being unfamiliar with the nature of the sanctions the USA has against Venezuela.

But do we really have the right to stop them from trading with other nations?

That doesn’t sound like sanctions so much as a WWI era naval blockade
Yes, Until Maduro ids eliminated
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom