Boatdrinks

Goose, you can’t be serious. Of course it’s political. They’re flexing on their enemies while actual criminals walk free within hours all over the USA. You probably approve of Grandmothers being sent to jail for Jan 6 trespassing while Steven Colbert’s crew gets a slap on the wrist. Face it , Dems and their ilk are complete losers whose goal is to turn America into a cesspool.

C’mon Goose. Everyone knows the sham committee’s purpose is to try and prevent Donald Trump from running for President again. They (and the entire Dem party plus their supporters) are obsessed with Trump because they are terrified of him.

You will see more factual reporting and sensible commentary in a single Tucker Carlson show than you would if you watched a 24/7 week of CNN.

I don’t believe this is true any longer. Perhaps at one time but not now.

I agree. The problem- as others have pointed out- is in the primaries. The participation rate is just too low, and that favors candidates at the far end of the spectrum for each party. It’s exactly how an India Walton ends up as the endorsed candidate for Mayor. Most people probably don’t agree with the far left/ right but they vote for their perceived “ lesser of two evils”. Often this is due to an extreme stance on one or two fringe issues. Occasionally a good candidate such as Donald Trump can emerge but not often enough.

This won’t change until the left admits that criminals are actually bad people. The outrage over using the term “ Good Samaritan “ is laughable if it weren’t so sad. Even invoking scripture: imagine that! I wonder what their take would be on “ The Good Samaritan Doctor performed the abortion for free” or “ The Good Samaritan Attorney defended the murderer pro bono”

The Government often cannot be trusted to do things properly. However, they are the only way to make laws. In effect, it’s the best we can do unless you have a better idea.

Maybe, maybe not. Your interaction with law enforcement and the result generally ( not always) comes down to you. Oftentimes it’s a case of you get what you give. Some folks are more inclined to give the Officer a modicum of respect from the outset. Others quite the opposite and I’ll leave it at that.

But if it “ identifies “ as an orange ….

I concur SoCal, and I definitely don’t buy into histrionics from the left. Most people would agree on allowances for these situations so it’s largely fear mongering.

I would argue that the life of the mother should always take priority in situations where it is in jeopardy. But hey, what do I know?

I’d venture that the top 10 states also have a higher obesity rate than the lowest ones. Many of our health issues in America can be traced to our poor choices in diet, exercise, etc.

I agree 100% with the first point. I’m not - nor would I ever- advocate for everything being left to popular vote. I doubt many people would. Although we saw plenty of majority tyranny during the Covid hysteria of the last couple years and the left seemed just fine with that. They don’t seem too fond of the electoral college - another check- either. Still, we can tone down the hyperbole a bit. Most things aren’t a cause for concern whether they are explicitly named in the constitution or not. As for the second part, perhaps there is cause for some concern. Perhaps not. This is part of the beauty of our Republic: diversity between states. If one is not to your liking , move to an area where the overall mindset is more suitable. What exactly is the reason for legally recognized “marriage” anyway? It’s likely to encourage offspring, which may become future taxpayers. Is it rooted in religion ? Why would anyone not fond of religious ideas want for this? All things to ponder while deciding whether or not to live in say, Missouri or California.

It’s not interesting or surprising in the least. What method would you guess most people think ( though not always correctly ) is the easiest? Fastest? Not to disparage anyone, but let’s be realistic here. Ending it all isn’t exactly an act of bravery. Jumping off a bridge may not seem appealing. Still, it’s no reason to restrict gun access of law abiding citizens.

Yep. The lack of media attention on local news and radio has been noticeable. These outlets all read from the same script and that’s why public trust in them has diminished.

I did t say it was an inalienable right. Look, I’m sure everyone could come up with something they would prefer be specified in the Constitution. There is a procedure for amendment, and that’s as it should be. We can’t go down the slippery slope of having judges get loosy goosey with the rules for obvious reasons. We are the government , and there’s no push to get the law into our bedrooms. It’s worrying over nothing. That whole example you gave was a simple case of someone who should have let a sleeping dog lie. They decided to get the law involved where they didn’t belong. The result was the officials said “ you want us involved with this nonsense we will get very involved ! “ Pretty amusing stuff but not something most people should be concerned about.

We have many inalienable rights. I don’t think we’re asking for trouble with things that are rather obvious because WE are the government. Do we have to put every little detail in there when the entire basis of our Nation is freedom? No need for that level of paranoia. Thomas is in a sense saying “ clean up your books, you folks are a complete joke”.

If you believe that I’ve got a great bridge to sell you. We all know what really happened because we watched the lead up , and it was completely predictable when all attempts at security were disallowed. These witnesses were probably threatened with prosecution ( oh they’d get a fair trial all right ) by the dictatorship currently at the helm.

Again, his job is not to decide based on what he would prefer. Legislators should legislate, and the legislation should be removed from the books. We don’t need a constitutional right for all of our freedoms. These are ancient and outdated laws that very few ( if any) of the people would support. Since we the people ARE the government, there should be little danger of these kinds of laws becoming reality as our representatives are there to do our bidding. I’m not surprised some of these laws still languish on the books because no one bothered to see to it. That’s how insignificant they are. It seems it took a complete oddity of a circumstance to even happen. I’d still argue Thomas ‘ decision is the correct one. It’s just not the job of the judicial branch.

Imagine that! The WaPo fired up about foreign dictatorships.

Ahhh, well perhaps I spoke too soon.Maybe even more hilarious a scenario? Still seems like chicanery from an ex and perhaps that’s why the Police even bothered to charge them. I’m guessing the “ punishment “ was like an appearance ticket and a fine? Again I’d still say the courts decision was correct , but a better plan of action would be to take your lumps and pay the fine. Then pursue getting the law off the books , which it should be imo.

They witnessed this or just hearsay?From absurd to borderline hilarious. A gay lovers spat? ( no pun intended) Bizarro world that something like this ever saw the light of day in a courtroom. The more I hear about this the more I’d say they all got what they deserved. I don’t know the orientation of the ex, but all this was brought on by themselves. It very well may be technically correct, but no one would have known or cared. Sometimes it’s best just to shut the $@&! up. Now, it seems the law should absolutely be scrubbed , but I think the right decision was reached unless I’m missing something. I mean, the courts don’t write legislation.

Again, how did anyone know? I’ve read about laws still on the books in some states that outlaw anything but the missionary position. A seemingly toothless law that no one bothered to scrub from the books because this doesn’t take place in public.

One thing Go fund me has done is expose the surprisingly vile and disgusting character of so many of our fellow Americans. Very sad.

This is not surprising- bit it still amazes me that anyone believes the 2020 Presidential election was legitimate. These are exactly the policies that were in place in swing states , and the Dems fought tooth and nail against signature checking. When one group is against security measures that’s pretty much all you need to know about the results.