GatewayRedbirds.com

Leroy wrote:I was just reading that section in the constitution about how abortions are legal.


---evil laugh---

Yep, that's what the Supreme Court ruled a few decades ago. My understanding is that the main part of the ruling was that making abortion a crime would be a "bill of attainder" which is prohibited by the Constitution.

If you know someone that is attempting an abortion, and you report it to authorities, should they be arrested and forced to deliver the baby? That's the exact thing prohibited by the Constitution. Liberty is a fun word to throw around when we're complaining about taxes, but over the centuries Liberty has more often been about not getting put in jail and forced to do something you don't want to do.

Leroy wrote:I was just reading that section in the constitution about how abortions are legal.


---evil laugh---

This is a poor understanding of Roe v. Wade....the constitution grants rights to privacy, not abortions.

Or maybe Clinton will lose to Cruz, whose wife is the personification of the Panama Papers.

a clinton/cruz face meld would be just as terrifying

Jocephus wrote:a clinton/cruz face meld would be just as terrifying

No merge needed to provide horror

thrill wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

thrill wrote:It's gonna suck when the Clintons are implicated in the Panama Papers and she loses to Trump.

From my understanding, there are few americans implicated in the panama papers because, well, it focused on international shell companies, like those in panama, and America has the ability to create its own shell companies, like in Idaho or Nevada.

I was being facetious (trolling) but hackers can find that [expletive] too.

I figured, but thought I would add some light to the topic since it fascinates me.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

thrill wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

thrill wrote:It's gonna suck when the Clintons are implicated in the Panama Papers and she loses to Trump.

From my understanding, there are few americans implicated in the panama papers because, well, it focused on international shell companies, like those in panama, and America has the ability to create its own shell companies, like in Idaho or Nevada.

I was being facetious (trolling) but hackers can find that [expletive] too.

I figured, but thought I would add some light to the topic since it fascinates me.

i swore i read something that implied there's another docudump waiting that includes prominent americans, etc...but i can't remember now.

Jocephus wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

thrill wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

thrill wrote:It's gonna suck when the Clintons are implicated in the Panama Papers and she loses to Trump.

From my understanding, there are few americans implicated in the panama papers because, well, it focused on international shell companies, like those in panama, and America has the ability to create its own shell companies, like in Idaho or Nevada.

I was being facetious (trolling) but hackers can find that [expletive] too.

I figured, but thought I would add some light to the topic since it fascinates me.

i swore i read something that implied there's another docudump waiting that includes prominent americans, etc...but i can't remember now.

There could be. With the sheer number of documents (what is it like 11.5 million now?) I'm sure some Americans will be implicated. But, the investigation, from my understanding, largely revolves around a firm in Panama. Americans surely used it. But, they (americans) have domestic options as well.

Jocephus wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

thrill wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

thrill wrote:It's gonna suck when the Clintons are implicated in the Panama Papers and she loses to Trump.

From my understanding, there are few americans implicated in the panama papers because, well, it focused on international shell companies, like those in panama, and America has the ability to create its own shell companies, like in Idaho or Nevada.

I was being facetious (trolling) but hackers can find that [expletive] too.

I figured, but thought I would add some light to the topic since it fascinates me.

i swore i read something that implied there's another docudump waiting that includes prominent americans, etc...but i can't remember now.

I saw that on twitter last night and a Clinton staffer was listed.

ghostrunner wrote:I agree it's overblown, but that's kind of the dividing line as I see it on whether you support him or Hillary. The big rap on him is "how are you realistically going to do this?" and then he had no answer. Whatever you think about Hillary she knows her [expletive] and would have something to say there.

I agree with this for the most part. I do think people are being a little rough on him for the interview.

I also think Bernie more than makes up for it with his track record. I don't think anyone can look at that (and I really mean look at it) and say that the guy doesn't know what he's doing.