|
Post by 3000fps on Dec 19, 2017 23:07:56 GMT -5
I'm guess the founding fathers never thought we as a nation would sink to these levels. How were abortions done back then, bumpy carriage ride? If a thug kicked one of Obama's spawn in the gut killing her "fetus" why would they be charged with murder? The Constitution back then didn't consider women, Blacks, or even non-property-owners to be a part of "We the People"... and an UNBORN baby/fetus... whatever you want to call it... is not yet a citizen of the United States and therefore is not guaranteed all the rights, privileges, and protections of the U.S. Constitution as a citizen... Who do you refer to when you say "Obama's spawn?"... True, and women and blacks gained equal status. In short like religion our amendments evolved past stoning, cutting hands off, flogging ect. obamas spawn... well since I doubt the dogs aren't his it's malaria and sushi perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Dec 20, 2017 8:18:35 GMT -5
Spawn?...
Spawn: The product or offspring of a person or place (used to express distaste or disgust)
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 20, 2017 9:56:23 GMT -5
I'm guess the founding fathers never thought we as a nation would sink to these levels. How were abortions done back then, bumpy carriage ride? If a thug kicked one of Obama's spawn in the gut killing her "fetus" why would they be charged with murder? The Constitution back then didn't consider women, Blacks, or even non-property-owners to be a part of "We the People"... and an UNBORN baby/fetus... whatever you want to call it... is not yet a citizen of the United States and therefore is not guaranteed all the rights, privileges, and protections of the U.S. Constitution as a citizen... Who do you refer to when you say "Obama's spawn?"... The 19th Amendment doesn't make those distinctions.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Dec 20, 2017 10:45:37 GMT -5
1789: The Constitution grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males.
1792: Beginning of the ABOLITION OF PROPERTY QUALIFICATIONS FOR WHITE MEN, from 1792 (Kentucky) to 1856 (North Carolina) during the periods of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy.
1870: NON-WHITE MEN and freed slaves are guaranteed the right to vote by the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, for many years, some states were very successful at suppressing this vote... (Jim Crow Laws)...
1920: WOMEN are guaranteed the right to vote by the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In practice, the same restrictions that hindered the ability of non-white men to vote now also applied
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 20, 2017 17:56:07 GMT -5
Good try, aboutwell, but the people you're talking to aren't listening. Constitutional amenedments have nothing to do with abortion, though our resident Commie, who claims to be a constitutional scholar, thinks so. And it looks like Mr. FPS has no idea when I'm talking about. He really should read about Roe v. Wade so that he can talk with some semblance of intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 20, 2017 19:40:24 GMT -5
1789: The Constitution grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males. 1792: Beginning of the ABOLITION OF PROPERTY QUALIFICATIONS FOR WHITE MEN, from 1792 (Kentucky) to 1856 (North Carolina) during the periods of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy. 1870: NON-WHITE MEN and freed slaves are guaranteed the right to vote by the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, for many years, some states were very successful at suppressing this vote... (Jim Crow Laws)... 1920: WOMEN are guaranteed the right to vote by the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In practice, the same restrictions that hindered the ability of non-white men to vote now also applied And notice that Jim Crow laws were a Democrat achievement. So were slavery, lyinchings, poll taxes, and segregation. However, the 19th doesn't distinguish between a citizen that has been born and one that hasn't. The Declaration of Independence claims "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". It doesn't differentiate between those that have been born, and those that are about to be. It's the Party of the KKK that demands the "right" to kill babies, just like they demanded the "right" to lynch blacks. "Gun" control laws were enacted to keep blacks from being armed, and therefore able to defend themselves against the KKK. The Party of the KKK has always been a white nationalist organization, and still is to this day. They are the only party that has racism as it's base platform.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 20, 2017 19:43:45 GMT -5
Good try, aboutwell, but the people you're talking to aren't listening. Constitutional amenedments have nothing to do with abortion, though our resident Commie, who claims to be a constitutional scholar, thinks so. And it looks like Mr. FPS has no idea when I'm talking about. He really should read about Roe v. Wade so that he can talk with some semblance of intelligence. Where does the Constitution address abortion? Where does it enumerate the right to kill babies? Especially, where does it give freedom to genocide, which is what the Party of the KKK is committing against blacks? Since you have never read the Constitution, how do you know what's in it? Roe v Wade was nothing but a radical, Leftist SCOTUS further debasing our culture, through the genocide of blacks. It had nothing at all to do with the Constitution, and in fact, on it's face ignored it. The 10A gives all that authority to the states. SCOTUS had no authority to even accept that case.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Dec 21, 2017 13:19:09 GMT -5
1789: The Constitution grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males. 1792: Beginning of the ABOLITION OF PROPERTY QUALIFICATIONS FOR WHITE MEN, from 1792 (Kentucky) to 1856 (North Carolina) during the periods of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy. 1870: NON-WHITE MEN and freed slaves are guaranteed the right to vote by the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, for many years, some states were very successful at suppressing this vote... (Jim Crow Laws)... 1920: WOMEN are guaranteed the right to vote by the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In practice, the same restrictions that hindered the ability of non-white men to vote now also applied And notice that Jim Crow laws were a Democrat achievement. So were slavery, lyinchings, poll taxes, and segregation. However, the 19th doesn't distinguish between a citizen that has been born and one that hasn't. The Declaration of Independence claims "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". It doesn't differentiate between those that have been born, and those that are about to be. It's the Party of the KKK that demands the "right" to kill babies, just like they demanded the "right" to lynch blacks. "Gun" control laws were enacted to keep blacks from being armed, and therefore able to defend themselves against the KKK. The Party of the KKK has always been a white nationalist organization, and still is to this day. They are the only party that has racism as it's base platform. I didn't say anything about who should or should not claim credit for any of the things mentioned, Redleg.... let's try to stay on topic here...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Dec 21, 2017 13:22:07 GMT -5
Good try, aboutwell, but the people you're talking to aren't listening. Constitutional amenedments have nothing to do with abortion, though our resident Commie, who claims to be a constitutional scholar, thinks so. And it looks like Mr. FPS has no idea when I'm talking about. He really should read about Roe v. Wade so that he can talk with some semblance of intelligence. Where does the Constitution address abortion? Where does it enumerate the right to kill babies? Especially, where does it give freedom to genocide, which is what the Party of the KKK is committing against blacks? Since you have never read the Constitution, how do you know what's in it? Roe v Wade was nothing but a radical, Leftist SCOTUS further debasing our culture, through the genocide of blacks. It had nothing at all to do with the Constitution, and in fact, on it's face ignored it. The 10A gives all that authority to the states. SCOTUS had no authority to even accept that case. I doesn't, Redleg... which is specifically why it went to the SCOTUS.l.. so they could interpret what it does say/mean... their ruling was based on a woman's personal "liberty interest"... read up on it for yourself... I won't even attempt to educate you on it here... you're a smart man...
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 21, 2017 13:52:17 GMT -5
Sorry, aboutwell, but the Commie is not a smart man. He claims to understand the Constitution, yet consistently misinterprets it. He claims to understand philosophy and theology, but we've proven numerous times that he has no idea what he's talking about. All he ever does is debase people with whom he disagrees. He constantly repeats the alt-right and neo-nazi lines. He's a sorry little man, a white and male supremacist who's trying to keep his place in a world that is changing.
He's actually a lot like Trump, trying to discredit the Congress and the Courts (note his constant attacks on the Supreme Court, who he claims does not understandthe Constitution!) and to repeal the First Amendment because he views the mainstream media as fake news, when all he reads is the fake news and outright lies from Fox and the alt-right Breitbart. He's trying to help Trump and Bannon bring down our existing government and install a totalitarian regime under Trump's control.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 21, 2017 14:54:02 GMT -5
Where does the Constitution address abortion? Where does it enumerate the right to kill babies? Especially, where does it give freedom to genocide, which is what the Party of the KKK is committing against blacks? Since you have never read the Constitution, how do you know what's in it? Roe v Wade was nothing but a radical, Leftist SCOTUS further debasing our culture, through the genocide of blacks. It had nothing at all to do with the Constitution, and in fact, on it's face ignored it. The 10A gives all that authority to the states. SCOTUS had no authority to even accept that case. I doesn't, Redleg... which is specifically why it went to the SCOTUS.l.. so they could interpret what it does say/mean... their ruling was based on a woman's personal "liberty interest"... read up on it for yourself... I won't even attempt to educate you on it here... you're a smart man... So, if a woman has the "privacy" to murder her unborn child, why doesn't that same privacy extend to buying a firearm? After all, that right is actually enumerated in the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 21, 2017 15:22:58 GMT -5
Where does the Constitution address abortion? Where does it enumerate the right to kill babies? Especially, where does it give freedom to genocide, which is what the Party of the KKK is committing against blacks? Since you have never read the Constitution, how do you know what's in it? Roe v Wade was nothing but a radical, Leftist SCOTUS further debasing our culture, through the genocide of blacks. It had nothing at all to do with the Constitution, and in fact, on it's face ignored it. The 10A gives all that authority to the states. SCOTUS had no authority to even accept that case. I doesn't, Redleg... which is specifically why it went to the SCOTUS.l.. so they could interpret what it does say/mean... their ruling was based on a woman's personal "liberty interest"... read up on it for yourself... I won't even attempt to educate you on it here... you're a smart man... And, aboutwell, the Roe v Wade ruling was based on the notion that the rights that flow from the Constitution flow to persons -- defined as those who are born. The unborn are not protected by the Constitution. You'd think a "Constitutional Scholar" like the Commie would know this, wouldn't you? Instead, he attacks the Supreme Court to further chip away at our government to bring about the totalitarian regime he so desires.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Dec 21, 2017 15:50:14 GMT -5
No persons unborn are citizens of the United States or any other country...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 22, 2017 9:46:34 GMT -5
No persons unborn are citizens of the United States or any other country... Really? So, the mother has no say in what country her child is a citizen of? They are not persons? I guess they are platypus' then. Or maybe kudus.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 22, 2017 9:47:55 GMT -5
I doesn't, Redleg... which is specifically why it went to the SCOTUS.l.. so they could interpret what it does say/mean... their ruling was based on a woman's personal "liberty interest"... read up on it for yourself... I won't even attempt to educate you on it here... you're a smart man... And, aboutwell, the Roe v Wade ruling was based on the notion that the rights that flow from the Constitution flow to persons -- defined as those who are born. The unborn are not protected by the Constitution. You'd think a "Constitutional Scholar" like the Commie would know this, wouldn't you? Instead, he attacks the Supreme Court to further chip away at our government to bring about the totalitarian regime he so desires. Neither are illegal aliens, yet you, and the rest of the Party of the KKK get hysterical when that is ever mentioned. Where does the Constitution say that the unborn are not persons? Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the authority to decide that issue?
|
|
|
Post by 3000fps on Dec 22, 2017 12:57:01 GMT -5
Sorry, aboutwell, but the Commie is not a smart man. He claims to understand the Constitution, yet consistently misinterprets it. He claims to understand philosophy and theology, but we've proven numerous times that he has no idea what he's talking about. All he ever does is debase people with whom he disagrees. He constantly repeats the alt-right and neo-nazi lines. He's a sorry little man, a white and male supremacist who's trying to keep his place in a world that is changing. He's actually a lot like Trump, trying to discredit the Congress and the Courts (note his constant attacks on the Supreme Court, who he claims does not understandthe Constitution!) and to repeal the First Amendment because he views the mainstream media as fake news, when all he reads is the fake news and outright lies from Fox and the alt-right Breitbart. He's trying to help Trump and Bannon bring down our existing government and install a totalitarian regime under Trump's control. Commies pretending to be Americans calling Americans commies........... good stuff!
|
|
|
Post by 3000fps on Dec 22, 2017 13:00:53 GMT -5
No persons unborn are citizens of the United States or any other country... Once again If a thug kicked one of Obama's spawn in the gut killing her "fetus" why would they be charged with murder? When convenient it's considered human if not a citizen.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Dec 24, 2017 19:25:02 GMT -5
No persons unborn are citizens of the United States or any other country... Really? So, the mother has no say in what country her child is a citizen of? They are not persons? I guess they are platypus' then. Or maybe kudus. irrelevant question, Redleg...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Dec 24, 2017 19:26:53 GMT -5
And, aboutwell, the Roe v Wade ruling was based on the notion that the rights that flow from the Constitution flow to persons -- defined as those who are born. The unborn are not protected by the Constitution. You'd think a "Constitutional Scholar" like the Commie would know this, wouldn't you? Instead, he attacks the Supreme Court to further chip away at our government to bring about the totalitarian regime he so desires. Neither are illegal aliens, yet you, and the rest of the Party of the KKK get hysterical when that is ever mentioned. Where does the Constitution say that the unborn are not persons? Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the authority to decide that issue? Neither one of who, Redleg?...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Dec 24, 2017 19:29:03 GMT -5
No persons unborn are citizens of the United States or any other country... Once again If a thug kicked one of Obama's spawn in the gut killing her "fetus" why would they be charged with murder? When convenient it's considered human if not a citizen. Some states have laws where the killing of a "fetus" can be changed with murder... I don't recall anyone saying a "fetus" wasn't alive... just not a citizen of most countries till born...
|
|
|
Post by 3000fps on Dec 24, 2017 20:31:39 GMT -5
Once again If a thug kicked one of Obama's spawn in the gut killing her "fetus" why would they be charged with murder? When convenient it's considered human if not a citizen. Some states have laws where the killing of a "fetus" can be changed with murder... I don't recall anyone saying a "fetus" wasn't alive... just not a citizen of most countries till born... First we're not talking about "most countries" we're talking about the U S of A and sadly that even includes backwater Mississippi, so drop that silly part of your argument. Can one be charged with "murdering" a dog or simply killing it? A fetus is in fact an unborn human child. As I said even obamas spawn is capable of carrying one just as a Kennedy is capable of murdering one.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Dec 24, 2017 20:42:20 GMT -5
Some states have laws where the killing of a "fetus" can be changed with murder... I don't recall anyone saying a "fetus" wasn't alive... just not a citizen of most countries till born... First we're not talking about "most countries" we're talking about the U S of A and sadly that even includes backwater Mississippi, so drop that silly part of your argument. Can one be charged with "murdering" a dog or simply killing it? A fetus is in fact an unborn human child. As I said even obamas spawn is capable of carrying one just as a Kennedy is capable of murdering one. I said as much... and also that it can be considered murder in most countries... INCLUDING the U.S... but not under all circumstances... and not in all states...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 28, 2017 11:36:45 GMT -5
Neither are illegal aliens, yet you, and the rest of the Party of the KKK get hysterical when that is ever mentioned. Where does the Constitution say that the unborn are not persons? Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the authority to decide that issue? Neither one of who, Redleg?... Illegal aliens are also not citizens, yet the Left insists that they get full rights, the second they set foot in our country. Or even before that, as in the judge that insisted that Trump's "ban" was unConstitutional, because it prohibited persons from coming here.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 28, 2017 11:37:56 GMT -5
Really? So, the mother has no say in what country her child is a citizen of? They are not persons? I guess they are platypus' then. Or maybe kudus. irrelevant question, Redleg... Really? Why? You claim that the unborn aren't citizens, therefore laws against murder don't apply to them. Why do they then apply to illegals, who also aren't citizens? And if the child is not a 'human', what is it?
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Dec 28, 2017 22:00:03 GMT -5
irrelevant question, Redleg... Really? Why? You claim that the unborn aren't citizens, therefore laws against murder don't apply to them. Why do they then apply to illegals, who also aren't citizens? And if the child is not a 'human', what is it? Why?... because they are not a resident here... their residency is inside their mother's body... and people from other countries have at least some rights when they come here... just like you do when you go to some other country...
|
|