ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
No, that all refers to the woman. Not the fetus. They couldn't check a fetus's eye or tooth. Duh.

You’re really grasping for straws here. I know you’re likely just having fun at this point, but I’ll play along for one more round.

No, that’s not accurate. It doesn’t say just “to the woman” and if that was the intention the Hebrew word “lah” could’ve easily been inserted there.

Nor does it make any sense to refer to just the woman AGAIN in this portion of the passage addressing the unborn. The punishment for her injury/death was already covered specifically starting back in v.12 which kicks off the whole section concerning personal injury laws.

I know the ISV/RSV translations are a pro choicer dream and a common go to when it comes to this passage but it’s simply just a bad translation of the intended text. Historians, scholars, authors, commentaries, priests, pastors worth their weight in salt all argue and debate even the most minute details of the Bible, but this one aint it.
 
Why is there not more coverage of accusation that Trump received $10,000,000 from Egypt and that Bill Barr quashed the investigation ?? Is Statute of Limitations the reason ??
Why is there not more coverage for the fact that Trump was almost shot to death just 3 weeks ago? And we still know basically nothing about the shooter?
 
Intentionally lying has never been covered by the First Amendment. Libel laws have not been ruled unconstitutional. Do you not know this?
1. Libel is not criminal- not in America. It is in many other countries.
2. The 1st Amendment has many safeguards against libel lawsuits, and certainly libel causes of action have indeed been found unconstitutional. If you're "intentionally lying" against even a public figure, even the First Amendment won't be likely to help you, unless the plaintiff can show damages. Not many politicians bother to sue against lies, because, what's the point.
3. The concern about what Walz said, which I didn't know about until today, because I honestly had barely heard of him, is two fold.
(A) Hate speech is absolutely protected by the 1st Amendment.
(B) "Misinformation" is absolutely protected by the 1st Amendment.
I actually have no idea what kind of hate he wants to outlaw, but I absolutely know what kind of "Misinformation" he wants to. He wanted to hit that Ivervectim crap and anti vaccine crap (which may or not actually be crap, but whatever), and he wanted to hit it hard. But, you can't do that in THIS country. 1st Amendment, see.
4. To repeat, libel laws, which are themselves, in THIS country, are civil, not criminal. And laws against "hate speech" and "Misinformation" are not the same as civil common laws against libel, because they don't even exist.
6. In general circumstances, lying is ABSOLUTELY protected by the 1st. While it is allegedly a sin to tell a lie, it's no cognizance crime.
 
Last edited:
Texas is the democrats white whale. If they could ever flip it Republicans would be done forever. That's why they have tried to flood that state with illegals. Most likely why they sent most of new Orleans to Houston after Katrina. None of them went back.

Imagine if millions of southerners and midwesternets and legal immigrants from the eastern bloc flooded new york enough to turn it red. Dems would lose their effing minds
 
Yeah...painting someone who served in the military for 27 years as a coward because he didn't put in for two more years is certainly something. That attack won't work either, esp. considering the guy at the head of your ticket got out of any type of military service because his daddy lied for him about bone spurs.

I get it - your side wants to go all in on going personal. That's not going to work anymore. I hope in three months you'll understand that but you'll likely be crying about another stolen election.
 
And not a single journalist or Democrat will ask, why aren't you doing this right now since you and grandpa are currently in office. This is why ppl like @Nightwish84 turn their attention to claiming all the right focuses on is memes, and making that the focus of argument...easier to avoid these type of things


 
Walz got married on the anniversary of the Massacre of Tiananmen Square and later talked about it.....he compared it to Wounded Knee, lol.

On the anniversary of the Massacre of Tiananmen Sqaure, he took his high school students to China.
 
The two parties will continue to attack each other and sling mud, which is no surprise to anyone. There may be more reporting on it, but Trump/Vance will not be able to creditably attack Walz on his handling of the George Floyd riots anymore because tapes have been released of Trump actually praising Walz on the matter. You can hear what he said in this video:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WTF Cat
The two parties will continue to attack each other and sling mud, which is no surprise to anyone. There may be more reporting on it, but Trump will not be able to creditably attack Walz on his handling of the George Floyd riots anymore because tapes have been released of Trump praising Walz on the matter. You can hear what he said in this video.
Comparing who Trump is now vs what he said then is apples and whisky barrels apart. He was in charge and it was a very volatile time. Congress was trying to destroy him. It was based on lies but if he took a hard stance the media would have ate him alive right out of office. I don't agree with Trump not taking a harder stance but all these riots happened in 100% dem controlled cities. They were coordinated and well funded events with one purpose in mind.

Nothing he could have done or said was going to stop it. He literally had to fight a near lose/lose situation his entire first term. Against both parties.

This version doesn't seem to give two rips what anyone thinks anymore. He knows what he's up against.
 
What's your issue with kids getting free lunch?
I’m still catching up on today’s thread, but I’ll jump in and say I’m totally fine with kids who NEED free lunch at school to get a free lunch. What I have an issue with is an open-ended, non-means tested free lunch for ALL school children. Why spend taxpayer money to buy lunches for kids whose parents can afford to pay for their lunch? Why stop at lunch? Let’s buy all kids back to school clothes regardless of their parents income.
 
Comparing who Trump is now vs what he said then is apples and whisky barrels apart. He was in charge and it was a very volatile time. Congress was trying to destroy him. It was based on lies but if he took a hard stance the media would have ate him alive right out of office. I don't agree with Trump not taking a harder stance but all these riots happened in 100% dem controlled cities. They were coordinated and well funded events with one purpose in mind.

Nothing he could have done or said was going to stop it. He literally had to fight a near lose/lose situation his entire first term. Against both parties.

This version doesn't seem to give two rips what anyone thinks anymore. He knows what he's up against.

All thats true, but he still cant attack him after saying that.

Trump could never attack anyone on covid (because his people formed the plan) or on the riots, because trump allowed them too.

Its on reason i think there were better options IF trump would've thrown his support.
 
1. Libel is not criminal- not in America. It is in many other countries.
2. The 1st Amendment has many safeguards against libel lawsuits, and certainly libel causes of action have indeed been found unconstitutional. If you're "intentionally lying" against even a public figure, even the First Amendment won't be likely to help you, unless the plaintiff can show damages. Not many politicians bother to sue against lies, because, what's the point.
3. The concern about what Walz said, which I didn't know about until today, because I honestly had barely heard of him, is two fold.
(A) Hate speech is absolutely protected by the 1st Amendment.
(B) "Misinformation" is absolutely protected by the 1st Amendment.
I actually have no idea what kind of hate he wants to outlaw, but I absolutely know what kind of "Misinformation" he wants to. He wanted to hit that Ivervectim crap and anti vaccine crap (which may or not actually be crap, but whatever), and he wanted to hit it hard. But, you can't do that in THIS country. 1st Amendment, see.
4. To repeat, libel laws, which are themselves, in THIS country, are civil, not criminal. And laws against "hate speech" and "Misinformation" are not the same as civil common laws against libel, because they don't even exist.
6. In general circumstances, lying is ABSOLUTELY protected by the 1st. While it is allegedly a sin to tell a lie, it's no cognizance crime.
I should probably clarify for the benefit of Dion. There are some times that lying can be prosecuted. Perjury, obstruction of justice, making a false report, etc. Spreading "lies" about the vaccine is ABSOLUTELY not a crime. Making libel against politicians, no way.
 
God's decision is in stone regarding this topic, you clueless moron.
Well then change the laws to represent that a fetus is a PERSON at conception.
You should be able to claim them on your taxes at conception.
The conception day will be the new birthday.
Tombstones should list the conception day till death.
If abortion was explicitly forbidden in the Bible, why is there No direct mention of it being forbidden anywhere at all??
And if you aren't going to grant person hood status to a fetus and all the benefits that comes with being a living, breathing, thinking person.... Then it's NOT a person by any measure of the law or Bible.
You fail.
 

The POS said "bloodbath" again. The POTUS intentionally deceiving voters, thinking he's talking about bloodshed when the only time Trump said that word was about the auto industry. Liberals are pond scum filth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IdaCat
k
Hilarious. Considering Jamie Raskin just announced Trumps win wouldn’t be certified by congress and he was prepared for a civil war. But the media will rely on conjecture by an old man suffering from dementia rather than Raskins own words.
 
Well then change the laws to represent that a fetus is a PERSON at conception.
You should be able to claim them on your taxes at conception.
The conception day will be the new birthday.
Tombstones should list the conception day till death.
If abortion was explicitly forbidden in the Bible, why is there No direct mention of it being forbidden anywhere at all??
And if you aren't going to grant person hood status to a fetus and all the benefits that comes with being a living, breathing, thinking person.... Then it's NOT a person by any measure of the law or Bible.
You fail.
Or just snuff em out right up to birth or even after like you and your buddy Walz wanna do. And you can say you’re not for that all you want, but that’s what you’re voting for. You guys will be on the right side of history on that one for sure.
 
And here we are, they'll go on about some weird lie. But then a Democrat lies about his combat experience and they're all "well you know, whatever"

Remember democrats and ppl like @Nightwish84 obssessed over a pine tree flag outside a scotus justice house...wonder if the attention will be the same, or if its a "those darn pubs at it again"

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IdaCat and Mash 2.4
Yeah...painting someone who served in the military for 27 years as a coward because he didn't put in for two more years is certainly something. That attack won't work either, esp. considering the guy at the head of your ticket got out of any type of military service because his daddy lied for him about bone spurs.

I get it - your side wants to go all in on going personal. That's not going to work anymore. I hope in three months you'll understand that but you'll likely be crying about another stolen election.

Dude, walz brought it up.

Kammy says she’s aa.

Warren says she’s na.


Boys need tampons.


NW: Why are you rightwingers always starting shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IdaCat
Yeah...painting someone who served in the military for 27 years as a coward because he didn't put in for two more years is certainly something. That attack won't work either, esp. considering the guy at the head of your ticket got out of any type of military service because his daddy lied for him about bone spurs.

I get it - your side wants to go all in on going personal. That's not going to work anymore. I hope in three months you'll understand that but you'll likely be crying about another stolen election.

Ok, you can excuse him quiting when he knew his unit was about to be deployed.

How do you explain him lying numerous times about having served overseas in combat, lying about his rank and falsifying retirement papers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: IdaCat
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT