Tab Content
  • familydog's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:52 PM
    At this point, I'm completely indifferent towards harassment and threats towards one's political enemies. I don't advocate it and I can't envision myself participating in such activities. However, whenever the right decides to return fire ten-fold, I and many others will be on the sidelines with a shrug and a collective yawn. The left insists on war and they might end up getting it. How long? Not long, 'cause what you reap is what you sow.
    9 replies | 210 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:39 PM
    The word "doomed" would suggest that a split is a bad thing. Quite the contrary. America will not split apart. The United States, however, will. America ≠ the United States.
    27 replies | 371 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    11-22-2020, 05:49 AM
    I find it bizarre that anyone would want to die for an individual elected official, but I completely sympathize with his frustration. Heritage Americans have been used, abused, and killed by the Washington machine without much thought or care since the dawn of the 20th Century. I'm afraid we are reaching a breaking point. What happens when anguish turns into righteous anger?
    22 replies | 619 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    11-20-2020, 05:30 PM
    Agreed. Why on earth would they release any bombshell evidence to a media that would either a) ignore it like they did the Hunter Biden story or b) amplify involved parties to invite harassment and doxxing?
    147 replies | 3694 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    11-18-2020, 03:58 AM
    The left will do anything for power. They will threaten your children and ruin your capacity to feed your family. They will lie, cheat, steal, beg, borrow and engage in the most savage behavior known to man. They will stop at nothing until their thirst for power is satiated. And that is why they continue to win.
    33 replies | 1252 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    11-17-2020, 05:29 AM
    On October 1, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals placed a stay on Judge Stickman's ruling against Governor Wolf. This means that the status quo resumes. The stay will be in effect until the Appeals court can hear the case on the merits. I assume that hearing will take place in January.
    6 replies | 320 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    11-16-2020, 02:13 PM
    The Trump campaign is arguing that the Pennsylvania Secretary of State and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed election laws without approval from the legislature. They are arguing that Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 (which supersedes state constitutions) was violated. They are arguing that it affects THIS election. Without an audit, we don't know how many votes this affects, so the Court can't dismiss on the grounds that it won't change the ultimate winner. I'm not sure where this is confusing for you.
    40 replies | 1295 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    11-16-2020, 12:48 PM
    Luckily we aren't talking about an advisory opinion.
    40 replies | 1295 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    11-16-2020, 09:48 AM
    Are you sure? The Court has jumped at the opportunity to uphold abortion across the country whenever it can, but balks at taking up any gun rights cases. Let's not pretend the Court is not subject to whims of the current political makeup. How on earth can anyone make that determination without an audit? Wouldn't it be nice to just settle the issue, um, right now?
    40 replies | 1295 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    11-16-2020, 09:22 AM
    Justices Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor do not want to get involved because their guy won. Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh do not want to get involved because they are institutional guys. The want to keep the "integrity" of the Court by staying out of "political" matters. Justice ACB is unknown. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch want involved because they are textualists and want to clarify how the process should work. Justice Alito wants to be involved because he is a conservative partisan who dabbles in textualism.
    40 replies | 1295 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    11-15-2020, 12:49 PM
    What you really mean to say is that the Pennsylvania Constitution conflicts with the US Constitution. The US Constitution holds supremacy in these matters.
    40 replies | 1295 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    11-15-2020, 09:52 AM
    Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1?
    40 replies | 1295 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    10-27-2020, 09:21 PM
    Sure, packing the court is Constitutional. However, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. I would simply ask them if they would accept Donald Trump packing the Court. Or, is that Constitutional power only reserved for leftists? On one hand, the Founders never intended nor imagined that the Court would become the most powerful branch of government. In fact, they argued it was the least powerful. On the other hand, Article 3 clearly states that Congress has complete control over every aspect of the federal judiciary. It can reign in the power of the Court at any moment. However, the Founders probably never imagined that Congress would defer all of their decision making to both the Executive and the Court.
    20 replies | 597 view(s)
No More Results

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
3,036
Posts Per Day
0.63
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 06:22 PM
Join Date
08-22-2007
Referrals
0

02-17-2020


No results to display...
Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast

11-23-2020


11-16-2020


11-15-2020


10-02-2020


09-30-2020


09-28-2020

  • 03:28 AM - Hidden

09-27-2020

  • 07:28 PM - Hidden
  • 05:52 PM - Hidden
  • 05:45 PM - Hidden
  • 09:29 AM - Hidden
  • 05:15 AM - Hidden
  • 04:48 AM - Hidden
  • 04:39 AM - Hidden

09-26-2020

  • 09:40 PM - Hidden


Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast