Indefensible and unforgivable

[StMonkton]

Help!

Transfer window now please.

Let’s get back to speculation about football.

However biased, I think I will largely understand what the issues are.

PUP

[uspompeyfan]

(thus getting rid of the 'fake news' that it will be used for contraception, gay rights etc...)

What does the constitution say about gay rights and contraception?

Just in case you missed this US. Genuinely curious what the constitution says about these sorts of things.

Sam, my apologies on missing a response to this. As you can see, I try to comment on every response, even if others don't agree. I have tried to be constructive (most on here know which way I lean politically, and have for the 16 years I have been on here). I think Cinci answered it, but if you need more then feel free to ask away.

[The Cincinnati Kid]

I don’t really see your point. If the Supreme Court puts these issues back to State authorities, what role does central government have?

Not aware of the multiple times the current administration has betrayed the Constitution. Examples?

Well, the feds could set laws on, say abortion or gun rights if they wished and if they had enough votes... but they haven't in the case of abortion for 101 different reasons. So it falls to the supreme court to interpret existing laws that the feds or states have made. so for instance , the feds could vote in the house and senate and the prez could sign off on a law that said abortion is legal everywhere up to 15 weeks....and that would be the end of that as long as said law didnt go against the constitution....but they haven't done so for, like I said, 101 different reasons.

[uspompeyfan]

I don’t really see your point. If the Supreme Court puts these issues back to State authorities, what role does central government have?

Strangely enough, the Federal Government was never meant to have too much power. It is why Washington DC is not allowed to become a State - because it would be too much power in such a small area. The Federal Government was always meant to guard the Nation's defense with particular attention to the border. Healthcare and Education were always meant to be State issues, but over time, the Feds took it, through using the three houses of Government to make laws that inhibbitted the 10th Amendment, which gives power to the State.

Not aware of the multiple times the current administration has betrayed the Constitution. Examples?
[/quote]
I could write a nice list, that would turn this into a never-ending fiasco.....let's just use 1
IMMIGRATION and the Southern border. A blatent disregard for the safety and security of America, which has seen the increase of illegal immigration, cartel control into 80 miles of the US (Nogales out past Tubac nowadays - yes, I have been there recently). No attempt at control and the border control agents have had their hands tied by the White House orders.

[StMonkton]

Oh for those happy, long lost days when children were kept in cages.

I thought an earlier president was going to build a wall in about 2 months. He was obviously busy rolling back Federal interference.

Was the Civil Rights Act another piece of Federal overreach?

[Pompey55]

Maybe I’m being stupid but don’t people always quote this or that amendment to justify their actions, therefore surely then other amendments can be added to allow for changes in society or do only 200 year old amendments count

[phat_chris]

I'd like to address a couple of points often argued by the pro-gun lobby.

"If there were more guns there wouldn't be any shootings." "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun." "If everyone had guns then bad guys would be too afraid to start shooting because they know they'd get shot by a good guy."

OK let's say for arguments sake that all this is true. Now let's scale it up a bit.

"If there were more nukes there wouldn't be any wars." "The only way to stop a bad country with a nuke is with a good country with a nuke." "If every country had nukes then bad countries would be too afraid to start a war because they know they'd get nuked by a good country."

Surely if the logic for the first example is true then the second example holds true as well. Therefore isn't in the world's best interest to arm every country in the world with nukes so that we can prevent any future wars from happening again? I wonder what the pro-gun lobby would think of the idea of arming countries like Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea with nukes?


Now I'd like to talk about the "Genie already out of the bottle" argument.

While it is true that there are already a ludicrous number of guns in circulation in the US, cutting off the supply of guns and, perhaps more crucially, ammo will prevent a previously law abiding citizen snapping, walking into a shop and buying what they need to go on a rampage.

This is just the immediate effect. Over time, with the supply cut off, the numbers of guns in circulation will decrease. It might take 100 years. It might take 200. However long it takes there will be a time when the guns in circulation dwindles. Long before this though the ammunition in circulation will have reached near 0.


Of course none of this will happen because of one simple fact: America is suffering from addiction. It is hopelessly addicted to guns and like any addiction the first step out of it is for America to admit to itself that it has a problem. Whether that happens before it destroys itself, only time will tell.

[Sam_Brown]

Maybe I’m being stupid but don’t people always quote this or that amendment to justify their actions, therefore surely then other amendments can be added to allow for changes in society or do only 200 year old amendments count

Yup. I get the feeling that the constitution is similar to the bible in that people pick and chose which parts they want to care about.

For some reason I haven't seen a fraction of as much energy spent discussing this constitution breaking law just passed by the SCOTUS. I do agree with others who suggest the whole thing is purely a divide and conquer tactic to take up air time because guns are such an emotive subject.



https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/p ... force.html

[Portchesterblue2]

only in america
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/wo ... 8e1d88044d

[uspompeyfan]

Oh for those happy, long lost days when children were kept in cages.

What, you mean the ones in the pictures from the Arizona Republic..... aimed at Trump, but were first published in 2014, when the cages were built under Obama's orders.

This was one of the easier bits of fake news to break down just after it was released. Trump actually set about changing the rules for how children were detained. However, it opened up the cartel system of bringing kids over and then using the kids to get settled and thus fiund a way for parents to come over later.

In AZ, we live the border crisis every day. Our cities are overflowing with drugs, illegal guns and human trafficking from the gaps in the border. Cartels actually use the main places such as Nogales and Yuma, where the main border patrol stations are (Nogales has Tucson as their holding point), as a way of keeping large numbers of agents occupied. This gives the gaps in the fence, most notably in the Apache reservation, to the drug running. Tribal border agents cannot bring in ICE as it is jurisdictional.

[uspompeyfan]

Maybe I’m being stupid but don’t people always quote this or that amendment to justify their actions, therefore surely then other amendments can be added to allow for changes in society or do only 200 year old amendments count

Yup. I get the feeling that the constitution is similar to the bible in that people pick and chose which parts they want to care about.

For some reason I haven't seen a fraction of as much energy spent discussing this constitution breaking law just passed by the SCOTUS. I do agree with others who suggest the whole thing is purely a divide and conquer tactic to take up air time because guns are such an emotive subject.



https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/p ... force.html

Even on a Friday afternoon, I am not going to read the whole PDF. However, I would refer to Justice Thomas's comments:

. Because our cases have
made clear that, in all but the most unusual circumstances,
prescribing a cause of action is a job for Congress, not the
courts, we reverse.

Thus, SCOTUS follows the Constitutional edict to refer such a case to the law makers, as the courts (judges) are not able to make new laws, which would have been the case via their judgement.

[Pompey55]

With due respect to the posters the tone of these recent posts inform me that it’s a good thing that we have got back to debating about football matters as I have really had to try very hard refrain from commenting on some of the posts coming from the other side of the pond which contradict everything I had experienced in my many business trips and socializing when visiting the States and my own view on social justice

[uspompeyfan]

With due respect to the posters the tone of these recent posts inform me that it’s a good thing that we have got back to debating about football matters as I have really had to try very hard refrain from commenting on some of the posts coming from the other side of the pond which contradict everything I had experienced in my many business trips and socializing when visiting the States and my own view on social justice

55, we could always discuss by how many goals Pompey could beat Phoenix Rising by...... even at nearly 60, I could probably give the Americans a good game see, I can make it a footy thread too

[Pompey55]

Fair enough this thread is actually one of the main reasons I avoid social media in general as once you get into deep social political and philosophical discussion you are always going to upset someone.
I prefer discussing football matters and discussing the PE teachers activities