Oh Alabama
Comments
-
Hey he's a racist too!Gwad said:
Old and melanin deficient is the new omnipresent.UWhuskytskeet said:
Hey Race lives within (x)Miles of the border, I think he knows what's going on.Gwad said:
Scratch an anti-immigration enthusiast find a eugenics endorser.RaceBannon said:If you want to attack sources start with WHO and the UN
I provided stats you provided opinion -
Leave it to the Constitution?MikeDamone said:
Leave it to the states?creepycoug said:
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.creepycoug said:
It's a tough one.MikeDamone said:
How do you propose this consensus would be established?creepycoug said:Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Do you really give a fuck what white trash alabama and Georgia elect to do? -
I believe in melanin equality.RaceBannon said:
Hey he's a racist too!Gwad said:
Old and melanin deficient is the new omnipresent.UWhuskytskeet said:
Hey Race lives within (x)Miles of the border, I think he knows what's going on.Gwad said:
Scratch an anti-immigration enthusiast find a eugenics endorser.RaceBannon said:If you want to attack sources start with WHO and the UN
I provided stats you provided opinion -
I knew you missed slavery. Called itCirrhosisDawg said:
Leave it to the Constitution?MikeDamone said:
Leave it to the states?creepycoug said:
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.creepycoug said:
It's a tough one.MikeDamone said:
How do you propose this consensus would be established?creepycoug said:Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Do you really give a fuck what white trash alabama and Georgia elect to do? -
What does the constitution say about it?CirrhosisDawg said:
Leave it to the Constitution?MikeDamone said:
Leave it to the states?creepycoug said:
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.creepycoug said:
It's a tough one.MikeDamone said:
How do you propose this consensus would be established?creepycoug said:Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Do you really give a fuck what white trash alabama and Georgia elect to do?
-
Sure you did. Great way to hide your support for the lowest common denominator in 2019 “america.”RaceBannon said:
I knew you missed slavery. Called itCirrhosisDawg said:
Leave it to the Constitution?MikeDamone said:
Leave it to the states?creepycoug said:
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.creepycoug said:
It's a tough one.MikeDamone said:
How do you propose this consensus would be established?creepycoug said:Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Do you really give a fuck what white trash alabama and Georgia elect to do?
Sanctuary states are the law of the land. -
In my non legal scholar opinion, the Constitution is silent on whether abortion should be legal or not. But we also have the 14th Amendment which basically says on the really important issues of the day, the law has to be consistent throughout the land. State's rights are not absolute, nor should they be.MikeDamone said:
What does the constitution say about it?CirrhosisDawg said:
Leave it to the Constitution?MikeDamone said:
Leave it to the states?creepycoug said:
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.creepycoug said:
It's a tough one.MikeDamone said:
How do you propose this consensus would be established?creepycoug said:Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Do you really give a fuck what white trash alabama and Georgia elect to do?
-
They aren't but that's ok facts were never your strong suit Governor WallaceCirrhosisDawg said:
Sure you did. Great way to hide your support for the lowest common denominator in 2019 “america.”RaceBannon said:
I knew you missed slavery. Called itCirrhosisDawg said:
Leave it to the Constitution?MikeDamone said:
Leave it to the states?creepycoug said:
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.creepycoug said:
It's a tough one.MikeDamone said:
How do you propose this consensus would be established?creepycoug said:Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Do you really give a fuck what white trash alabama and Georgia elect to do?
Sanctuary states are the law of the land. -
If there were an actual constitutional right to privacy spelled out then a lot of the shit we have going today would not be allowed. We actually have law that says there is no right to privacy nor the expectation thereof
So we balance security versus privacy and privacy loses
Could your bank report deposits to the government if we had a right to privacy? -
Exactly. The right to privacy thing has always been FS. The consideration should be is there compelling reason for the state to intervene or not.RaceBannon said:If there were an actual constitutional right to privacy spelled out then a lot of the shit we have going today would not be allowed. We actually have law that says there is no right to privacy nor the expectation thereof
So we balance security versus privacy and privacy loses
Could your bank report deposits to the government if we had a right to privacy?
