Jump to content

Where Do Our Government Hating Conservatives Stand on.......


DannyZuco

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, DannyZuco said:

That is not correct, the supreme court in 1973 used the 1st amendment to guide it for the right to an abortion. They interpreted, like many on both sides of the aisle, the 1st amendment to allow everyone to have a choice. Upon which so many more decisions have been made since then. Especially when "choice" is involved. 

I do not wish to choose to sell my land to an investor so they can build a railroad, yet the Texas Supreme court say that they may use eminent domain to take my land, even though I refuse--and while I have the right to sue, like a poster says, I probably don't have the funds that an investor has to continue this to the Supreme Court of the United States. Therefore, my choice has been taken away from me. 

And I agree that the states should have the right to decide the matter of abortion in their states--and it should be on the ballot box in November to allow the people of the state to decide, not a bunch of elected legislators paid for by lobbyists to decide. And there should be several propositions from which to choose from, such as total bans, bans with exceptions, full right to one at any time, and full right to one prior to birth. I wonder just how many of the people would want to see a vote like that. I wonder how many are scared they would lose the full ban on abortions? 

BTW--dude, slow down and learn to spell correctly. As I am playing Police Nazi today. :rofl:

Just like the SC wrongly decided the R vs W case inventing something that just wasn't in the Constitution,  you are inventing a "right" that just isn't there .... nice try, but no cigar .... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KirtFalcon said:

Just like the SC wrongly decided the R vs W case inventing something that just wasn't in the Constitution,  you are inventing a "right" that just isn't there .... nice try, but no cigar .... 

I guess he must agree with Dred Scott and Plessey v. Ferguson with that logic.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BoyzNdaHood said:

Thou shall not kill means exactly that.. spin it how you want

Constitution is NOT God

Proper translation is "You shall not commit murder"......God established that self defense is not murder......killing an enemy soldier in battle is not murder......government putting a convicted criminal to death is not murder.......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RETIREDFAN1 said:

Proper translation is "You shall not commit murder"......God established that self defense is not murder......killing an enemy soldier in battle is not murder......government putting a convicted criminal to death is not murder.......

Quote scripture of him establishing it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DannyZuco said:

Quote me a clause in the Constitution that says you can't have an abortion......

There you have it….you said you read the 10th….but you didn’t understand it

 

6 hours ago, RETIREDFAN1 said:
Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The PEOPLE of the state of Texas do not want abortion…

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DannyZuco said:

That is not correct, the supreme court in 1973 used the 1st amendment to guide it for the right to an abortion. They interpreted, like many on both sides of the aisle, the 1st amendment to allow everyone to have a choice. Upon which so many more decisions have been made since then. Especially when "choice" is involved. 

I do not wish to choose to sell my land to an investor so they can build a railroad, yet the Texas Supreme court say that they may use eminent domain to take my land, even though I refuse--and while I have the right to sue, like a poster says, I probably don't have the funds that an investor has to continue this to the Supreme Court of the United States. Therefore, my choice has been taken away from me. 

And I agree that the states should have the right to decide the matter of abortion in their states--and it should be on the ballot box in November to allow the people of the state to decide, not a bunch of elected legislators paid for by lobbyists to decide. And there should be several propositions from which to choose from, such as total bans, bans with exceptions, full right to one at any time, and full right to one prior to birth. I wonder just how many of the people would want to see a vote like that. I wonder how many are scared they would lose the full ban on abortions? 

BTW--dude, slow down and learn to spell correctly. As I am playing Police Nazi today. :rofl:

If name calling is the last refuge of someone losing an argument, couldn’t the same be said for someone resorting to being the Spelling Police?  I’ve got two wondar.  😂😂😂🤣🤣👽🤣🤣😂😂😂

  • LOL! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DannyZuco said:

The supreme court just allowed states to take away a right from an individual--that being the ability to choose--you know like when many on here were yelling "my body my choice" when it came to the vaccine. 

If the Texas Supreme court ruling is allowed to stand, then an investor wanting to make money off the taxpayers, can come and take your land, so they can build a railroad on it, that might go faster. Just another individual right taken away, that is what they have in common. 

I am glad that you do not support this, especially when the land they need is already there, all they have to to is build on top of it. I am telling you that a monorail system that flows over the top of the interstate system we have already would make more sense and provide a cleaner source for the climate whiners out there. 

The only instance I’ve ever seen where eminent domain was used was a single holdout landowner for a large transmission pipeline.  He wanted 5x what other neighboring landowners were getting for it crossing their property.  After court, he got exactly what other landowners got, minus his court costs.  Eminent domain isn’t for securing all ROW, just areas where a holdout is stopping progress.  And they aren’t taking your land, just gaining access/easement.  I guess the court could seize it, but that’s an overstep imo.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, RETIREDFAN1 said:

GOD established capitol punishment........i don't question HIM......

So you DO do as you're told...;)

I get your point. I really do.

My biggest problem with the death penalty is making sure its the right person. Plenty of stories where an innocent person was executed, and it was determined later that the person indeed didn't commit the crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...