Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I doubt Hillary makes it through the election. I think she is about to be indicted.
No, the comparison is the law changed. It changed for blacks and it changed for women.
And it will change for the unborn.
No, he didn't break any laws, but you, a moronic idiot conservative, likes to bitch about the poor people not paying taxes and here you are, like a salivating pig sucking up to the millionaire and giving him a pass.....how pathetic you dumbasses are.You're delusional. We only complain about the rich and corporations not paying their fair share. You psuedo compassionates want people who have nothing to pay while letting the rich like Trump escape without paying. That's really stupid, but then, conservative logic has never been considered supreme. And, Trumpf must not be following the law, as he got away without paying taxes back in 78 and 79...yet you illogical conservatives want to make him President.
One by one, all that called Trump a con artist, a cancer, a liar and a pariah among other nasty things are now, like good little lemmings falling in step defending him and supporting him. Hypocrites, conservative is thy name.
Trump Paid No Income Tax in 1978, ’79
Well child, like the typical regressive sodomite enabler you're making assumptions that you can't or won't back up, absolutely nothing in your leftwing rag link said he broke any law.
I never said he broke any law, asshole, but like the idiot that you are, you missed the whole point ....how come you're not bitching about him not paying taxes when you're so quick to point out that those who don't make any money should still pay taxes? Because you're such a gullible idiot waiting for some of his money to trickle down.So how about you provide a link where he did, or admit you're full of shit.
Of course, I take whatever deductions I am allowed...but con artists like Trump are able to manufacture situations that allow them to take deductions that middle-class people aren't able to, thanks to the Republican party, who provides them with so many tax shelters and is able to do so thanks to gullible idiots like you who they fool into thinking it is in your best interest.Anyone who files and pay their taxes according to the law is paying their fair share, of course I'm sure you're so committed to big government you wouldn't think of taking a single deduction, right? LMFAO
Also as I've stated may times, the one and only reason I'll vote for Trump is I don't want the hildabitch within a thousand miles of a supreme court nomination. In the presidential election I'm admittedly a single issue voter.
So, you're admitting that all that bullshit about caring about jobs, unemployment, the economy and the welfare of the country, blah, blah, blah, is nothing but bullshit. You would rather have a con artist, narcissist, racist liar for President, who takes advantage of hard working people with his fake University and demeans judges with racial slurs because they don't acquiesce to his demands....and who calls Hillary crooked when he is the one that has been bribing an Attorney General and a governor to drop their charges against his fake University, over Hillary, who happens to be more experienced, eloquent, intelligent, and a strong person (still standing in spite of all the bullshit allegations made by your party).
Looks like "crooked Trump" has no business calling anyone else "crooked" except maybe Gregg Abbott and Pam Bondi.
Remember Pam Bondi, the Florida Attorney General who failed to open up an investigation into fraud charges against Trump University in 2013, only to have it discovered that in September of that year, the Donald J. Trump Foundation had donated $25,000 to her PAC?
Yeah. She wasn’t the only one, but she got short-changed, it appears. Maybe she could have held out for more.
The Associated Press is reporting that Texas Governor Greg Abbott received a $35,000 donation to his gubernatorial campaign from Trump, sometime after dropping a probe into Trump University, back in 2010, when Abbott was still the Texas Attorney General.
Texas Gov. Abbott Received $35,000 Donation from Trump After Dropping Trump University Investigation | RedState
Fuck off you ignorant bitch.
Bwahahaha.....you can't refute it, can you, you ignorant asshole. Having a meltdown?
You would rather have a con artist, narcissist, racist liar for President
No, you ignorant asshole.....that was the 8 years before Obama that we had a fucking idiot for President.Why not, we had one for the last 8 fucking years.
Even your party admitted that he was an idiot, when they rejected his brother, Jeb. Oh, you probably voted for Jeb, you're so fucking stupid.
You are one hysterical, hyper-partisan, illogical little moron, aren't you?
I doubt Hillary makes it through the election. I think she is about to be indicted.
Trump will probably end up going to jail for his fraud, but I doubt that Hillary will be indicted.....she didn't break any laws. Republicans keep hoping and coming up with wannabe scandals that end up being nothing but bull.
That would mean women would lose their rights.....
1. I didn't vote for Bush.
2. Bush didn't have a chance in hell, because the party wasn't going to go with the anointed one the way you lemmings did.
...and I don't believe that is ever going to happen....not with a Democratic President....and I doubt that Trumpf would go that route...
That would mean women would lose their rights.....
Nonsense. You don't have rights that supersede another's right to life.
They may lose a privilege they've enjoyed... like slave owners lost their privilege to own slaves... but that's not losing a "right."
...and I don't believe that is ever going to happen....not with a Democratic President....and I doubt that Trumpf would go that route...
It has nothing to do with the president. All the president can do is appoint justices. It will take an act of Congress, a Constitutional Amendment or a court reversal of Roe v. Wade. Democrats and Liberals aren't always going to be in charge of everything, so... yeah, it can happen and it will happen eventually.
That would mean women would lose their rights.....
Nonsense. You don't have rights that supersede another's right to life.
We sure do...or you wouldn't be whining about it. Fetuses are not persons, and women have a right over them.
They may lose a privilege they've enjoyed... like slave owners lost their privilege to own slaves... but that's not losing a "right."
I seriously doubt it. We've had several "Republican" presidents since Roe v Wade was made the law of the land, and they haven't even tried to do away with it.....most candidates pander to the right on that issue to get elected, but don't even touch it once they're in. Trumpf isn't even going to get the chance to get in.
Yeah.... Usually, the FBI only does "criminal investigations" when a crime is believed to have been committed.
No, the comparison is the law changed. It changed for blacks and it changed for women.
And it will change for the unborn.
That would mean women would lose their rights.....and I don't believe that is ever going to happen....not with a Democratic President....and I doubt that Trumpf would go that route....he was pro-choice once, and only changed to placate the gullible that will vote for him.
That would mean women would lose their rights.....
Nonsense. You don't have rights that supersede another's right to life.
We sure do...or you wouldn't be whining about it. Fetuses are not persons, and women have a right over them.
Well the argument isn't what the law is NOW, goofball! We all know what the law says NOW.... that's not debatable. Fetuses are human beings and at some point, they deserve human rights as human beings. If that interferes with someone else's perceived right, it's too bad.
I'm not "whining" about a goddamn thing, you piece of shit. I am telling you that you will not always have the right to kill innocent unborn human beings for the sake of your vanity and convenience and this fight will rage on until victory is achieved.
They may lose a privilege they've enjoyed... like slave owners lost their privilege to own slaves... but that's not losing a "right."
I seriously doubt it. We've had several "Republican" presidents since Roe v Wade was made the law of the land, and they haven't even tried to do away with it.....most candidates pander to the right on that issue to get elected, but don't even touch it once they're in. Trumpf isn't even going to get the chance to get in.
Again... maybe you're too retarded to comprehend how this works but presidents don't control whether or not abortion is legal. The only thing presidential candidates on the right do is promise to appoint judges who are pro-life.
No, the comparison is the law changed. It changed for blacks and it changed for women.
And it will change for the unborn.
That would mean women would lose their rights.....and I don't believe that is ever going to happen....not with a Democratic President....and I doubt that Trumpf would go that route....he was pro-choice once, and only changed to placate the gullible that will vote for him.
No one has the right to violate the rights of a child.
No, the comparison is the law changed. It changed for blacks and it changed for women.
And it will change for the unborn.
That would mean women would lose their rights.....and I don't believe that is ever going to happen....not with a Democratic President....and I doubt that Trumpf would go that route....he was pro-choice once, and only changed to placate the gullible that will vote for him.
No one has the right to violate the rights of a child.
A fetus is not a child. Therein lies the problem.....you don't know the difference between a child and a fetus.
Since unborn are not constitutionally "persons," their "rights" don't supercede the pregnant woman's.That would mean women would lose their rights.....
Nonsense. You don't have rights that supersede another's right to life. They may lose a privilege they've enjoyed... like slave owners lost their privilege to own slaves... but that's not losing a "right."
Since unborn are not constitutionally "persons," their "rights" don't supercede the pregnant woman's.That would mean women would lose their rights.....
Nonsense. You don't have rights that supersede another's right to life. They may lose a privilege they've enjoyed... like slave owners lost their privilege to own slaves... but that's not losing a "right."
Since unborn are not constitutionally "persons," their "rights" don't supercede the pregnant woman's.
No, it doesn't.Since unborn are not constitutionally "persons," their "rights" don't supercede the pregnant woman's.That would mean women would lose their rights.....
Nonsense. You don't have rights that supersede another's right to life. They may lose a privilege they've enjoyed... like slave owners lost their privilege to own slaves... but that's not losing a "right."
If prenatal children are not constitutionally persons, then those opposed to our fetal homicide laws should have no problem overturning the MURDER convictions of those who are presently convicted.
A murder charge means a "person" was killed. Doesn't it?
Go post on a gay website if you want to discuss your dreams. Here, we're discussing reality, not what you dream to see come true.Since unborn are not constitutionally "persons," their "rights" don't supercede the pregnant woman's.
Again... (because apparently there ARE retards here).... We are not having a debate on what is currently the law and constitutional under the law. We're all adults who know how to use a computer and Google... so there is really no excuse for not knowing that since Roe v. Wade, abortions are legal in America and constitutionally upheld by the courts.
The DEBATE is over whether or not this SHOULD be the case. You've offered nothing to demonstrate that a human fetus is not a living human being in the fetal stage of development. I have made the point, as a human being, the fetus (at some point) deserves constitutional protection of life... at the very minimum.
