New member with three posts, and all of them here. You should try a different approach.
Do you hunt? Why not introduce yourself first before posting political memes?![]()
And a negative reaction score. I had no idea that was possible.
New member with three posts, and all of them here. You should try a different approach.
Do you hunt? Why not introduce yourself first before posting political memes?![]()
Stig, you have the right to say (and post) whatever you like….within reason and under the moderator’s judgement. I for one say, post away! The members of this forum have the right to call your posts stupid, wrong, evil, uninformed or whatever they wish. The 1st Amendment cuts both ways. I personally found your post amusing…..but probably not for the reasons you posted. Carry on."Really, you are going to post something this stupid here? LOL.."
When browsing through the last couple of pages of this thread, I thought my posts where quite appropriate. Stupid memes trying to provoke/put down people with other opinions..
Do you condone all the slagging off of all other viewpoints that do not conform with your views? I agree that my posts where made to provoke, but is my viewpoint not valid because it does not align with yours?
And is africahunting.com a website/forum only for those that agree with you? Referring to you calling my post stupid.
100%. THIS is the big news of the current SCOTUS session. The Court has essentially castrated the alphabet agencies. They may have ended the delegation of law making power by the Legislative branch to the Executive branch. The implications are mind boggling.The return of the abortion debate to the legislative bodies (state and congress) is an important cultural inflection point. However, this decision, at least in my opinion, is the most seismic of the session. Most surprisingly, it is delivered as a sweeping set of guidance rather than a narrow case-based decision. The climate change hysterics will now have their day of public tantrums.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politic...iden-climate-agenda-serious-blow-epa-decision
This is a long time coming. Congress has, for far too long, delegated what is essentially law-making power to executive agencies. As a bunch of feckless cowards, it allows them to dodge being criticized for crappy legislation that heavily burdens us.100%. THIS is the big news of the current SCOTUS session. The Court has essentially castrated the alphabet agencies. They may have ended the delegation of law making power by the Legislative branch to the Executive branch. The implications are mind boggling.
Congress doesn't really even write laws anymore. Lobbyist and special interest groups do all the work, then submit it to Congress who make it intentionally vague so the bureaucracy can define and enforce it. This way Congressmen and women do not have to vote on controversial issues.
This SCOTUS session has been one of the most transformative in my lifetime.
This sounds like a Harris quote.This is from the Babylon Bee.........riveting testimony
"Really, you are going to post something this stupid here? LOL.."
When browsing through the last couple of pages of this thread, I thought my posts where quite appropriate. Stupid memes trying to provoke/put down people with other opinions..
Do you condone all the slagging off of all other viewpoints that do not conform with your views? I agree that my posts where made to provoke, but is my viewpoint not valid because it does not align with yours?
And is africahunting.com a website/forum only for those that agree with you? Referring to you calling my post stupid.
Is there anyone on the left that is intellectually honest? No, not many. The battle cry of liberals world wide is “Baby Wants!” Nothing will ever constrain their limitless wants, which only the Government can satisfy.So, here's what I don't understand about all the SC angst I'm reading in the mass market media:
Right there, in the first amendment, I see: "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
At the same time, I'm being told that "not all rights are absolute..."
Right there, in the second amendment, I see: "...shall not be infringed."
At the same time, I'm being told that "not all rights are absolute..."
In the ninth amendment I see: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
At the same time, I'm being told that "The founders could not have imagined..."
In the tenth amendment I see: "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."
At the same time, I hear the term "end of democracy" and "disgusting ruling", as well as "The founders could not have imagined..."
Am I the only one that sees the hypocrisy in "not all rights are absolute..."?
Am I the only one that sees that referring a topic to the states, or to the people enhances democracy?
Is there anyone on the left who can be intellectually honest enough to discuss this?
The Constitution reads one way. The libtard left wants to change it to suit their twisted agenda. Rights are absolute, privileges are fluid. They are attempting to make people believe that everything should reflect their fanaticism, hence the babble about revising or rewriting the Canstitution.So, here's what I don't understand about all the SC angst I'm reading in the mass market media:
Right there, in the first amendment, I see: "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
At the same time, I'm being told that "not all rights are absolute..."
Right there, in the second amendment, I see: "...shall not be infringed."
At the same time, I'm being told that "not all rights are absolute..."
In the ninth amendment I see: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
At the same time, I'm being told that "The founders could not have imagined..."
In the tenth amendment I see: "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."
At the same time, I hear the term "end of democracy" and "disgusting ruling", as well as "The founders could not have imagined..."
Am I the only one that sees the hypocrisy in "not all rights are absolute..."?
Am I the only one that sees that referring a topic to the states, or to the people enhances democracy?
Is there anyone on the left who can be intellectually honest enough to discuss this?