Carson defends Trump: He didn't have time to think about abortion question

[NYcarbineer]

...they suffer from an over-inflated sense of self.

You win ironic comment of the month.

 

[Dale Smith]

...they suffer from an over-inflated sense of self.

You win ironic comment of the month.

When some of these punkipusses attack me, I respond in kind and I always give out better than what I get. This isn't my first rodeo.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You do.

Eat shit and die, Jake the fake...I know more than you...don't ever forget that.

Your feeding instructions are printed in reverse on your forehead so you can remind yourself every time how to do it by looking in the mirror. Do not think ever that you have cred on this Board.Now have a nice day.

"Cred"? WOW! you are so "ghetto and hip"....(snicker)
I have all the "cred" I need...there are mules that you can lead to water but they will not drink just because they are stubborn...let them suffer from thirst until they are ready. You make no coherent arguments...you are just a flaming douche and like most Fabian socialists, they suffer from an over-inflated sense of self. It's a symptom of something far worse...it's called "arrested development". Here's hoping that you get over it. Hope this helps!

You are nothing but a silly from la la land who believes he is a sovereign citizen, while living in the basement. You are for grins and giggle, nothing more. "Fabian socialists." (chuckle)

I claimed my pre -14th amendment rights...sovereign movement is totally different. I got out from under the UCC and I don't "contract" with USA.INC because under this system, it's all about contracts. What I have learned and studied are things that would make your tiny programmed brain explode. I kicked some leftard's ass yesterday because he said that there was no such thing as USA.INC so I pulled up the Dun and Bradstreet website and proved it. The Supreme Court is incorporated, the FBI is incorporated. The IRS is incorporated in Puerto Rico....now I am sure that you don't have a clue as to the significance of that but I don't expect much from you anyway.

You have leaned nothing, merely exploited. You have no pre-14th Amendment rights except in your mind, and that means nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

...they suffer from an over-inflated sense of self.

You win ironic comment of the month.

When some of these punkipusses attack me, I respond in kind and I always give out better than what I get. This isn't my first rodeo.

But you are always thrown immediately is your problem.

 

[Dale Smith]

...they suffer from an over-inflated sense of self.

You win ironic comment of the month.

When some of these punkipusses attack me, I respond in kind and I always give out better than what I get. This isn't my first rodeo.

But you are always thrown immediately is your problem.

I am sure that you can point to some post of mine with a rebuttal where that has happened.....happy searching.

 

[SwimExpert]

Your feeding instructions are printed in reverse on your forehead

Not anymore. They tried that a couple times but it didn't go so well. He kept trying to feed the mirror.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why shouldn't the woman be held responsible for hiring someone to kill her child?

Oohh a strawman cartoon! Nice!

 

[easyt65]

No one has to defend Trump.

He was asked 'IF ABORTIONS ARE BANNED (AS IN MADE ILLEGAL) SHOULD WOMEN BE PUNISHED FOR HAVING THEM?

TRUMP ANSWERED CORRECTLY: 'YES!'

Trump was, bottom line, asked if he believes existing laws should be enforced and if someone breaking existing law should be punished. Part of what this nation is based on is enforcement of the Rule of law. Mush like Obama, who has repeatedly used the Constitution and existing laws like some Chinese take-out A La Carte Menus based on what laws HE likes and doesn't like, are going ape-shit over Trump's answer because they don't / would not like the hypothetical law banning abortions. As a result of not LIKING such a law they would not want to see it enforced or the violator punished...based solely on the fact that they disagree with the law.

Thank GOD the legal system does not work that way...or before Obama it was not supposed to. It doesn't matter if you like a law or not, if you disagree with a law or not - you STILL have to obey it...until you can change it.

If a woman broke, violated, ignored, or bypassed and existing law should she be punished. ABSOLUTELY YES!

Obama did not like the DOM law, so he declared to the world he would not enforce it.
Obama doesn't like existing immigration law, so he ignores it.
Obama has ignored a LOT of laws, rules ,etc simply because he doesn't like them.
NOW liberals have the idea that simply because you don't like or agree with laws you can simply ignore them and should not be punished for breaking those laws you don't like.

I can so NOT wait for a new President and government that will actually enforce existing laws - all of them - and hold people accountable again!

 

[bendog]

So a President Trump would need to be warned ahead of time about all questions or circumstances that might arise? Unbelievable.
Carson defends Trump: He didn't have time to think about abortion question

Hey it's tough running for President when you have to figure things out on the fly. Give these two guys a break, huh?

 

[Dale Smith]

Your feeding instructions are printed in reverse on your forehead

Not anymore. They tried that a couple times but it didn't go so well. He kept trying to feed the mirror.

#1 Your "flame game" is lame.
#2 You lack the intellect to tackle an issue and sound even remotely informed via due diligence.
#3 (And most importantly) I know more than you and it seems to piss you off. I am here to help.

 

[SwimExpert]

#3 (And most importantly) I know more than you and it seems to piss you off. I am here to help.

Don't worry. You're a very important person. Someone will realize it someday. Probably the same person you try to feed when you read his forehead, but whatever.

 

[Dale Smith]

No one has to defend Trump.

He was asked 'IF ABORTIONS ARE BANNED (AS IN MADE ILLEGAL) SHOULD WOMEN BE PUNISHED FOR HAVING THEM?

TRUMP ANSWERED CORRECTLY: 'YES!'

Trump was, bottom line, asked if he believes existing laws should be enforced and if someone breaking existing law should be punished. Part of what this nation is based on is enforcement of the Rule of law. Mush like Obama, who has repeatedly used the Constitution and existing laws like some Chinese take-out A La Carte Menus based on what laws HE likes and doesn't like, are going ape-shit over Trump's answer because they don't / would not like the hypothetical law banning abortions. As a result of not LIKING such a law they would not want to see it enforced or the violator punished...based solely on the fact that they disagree with the law.

Thank GOD the legal system does not work that way...or before Obama it was not supposed to. It doesn't matter if you like a law or not, if you disagree with a law or not - you STILL have to obey it...until you can change it.

If a woman broke, violated, ignored, or bypassed and existing law should she be punished. ABSOLUTELY YES!

Obama did not like the DOM law, so he declared to the world he would not enforce it.
Obama doesn't like existing immigration law, so he ignores it.
Obama has ignored a LOT of laws, rules ,etc simply because he doesn't like them.

#3 (And most importantly) I know more than you and it seems to piss you off. I am here to help.

Don't worry. You're a very important person. Someone will realize it someday. Probably the same person you try to feed when you read his forehead, but whatever.

Nah, I am just a small cog on a machine that grows bigger every day with people waking up to the massive fraud and theft that has been done to them. It's only the terminally stupid and those that are so dumbed down that believe that this corporate "gubermint" has their best interest at heart. I proved my point yesterday when I posted links from Dun and Bradstreet. I just do what I do and let the chips fall where they may.. So far you are one of the posters here that are less than impressive when it comes to making a salient point that makes anyone ponder their position....just sayin'.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your feeding instructions are printed in reverse on your forehead

Not anymore. They tried that a couple times but it didn't go so well. He kept trying to feed the mirror.

#1 Your "flame game" is lame.
#2 You lack the intellect to tackle an issue and sound even remotely informed via due diligence.
#3 (And most importantly) I know more than you and it seems to piss you off. I am here to help.

We are laughing at you, not pissed at you. But go on, go on. You are fun.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has to defend Trump.

He was asked 'IF ABORTIONS ARE BANNED (AS IN MADE ILLEGAL) SHOULD WOMEN BE PUNISHED FOR HAVING THEM?

TRUMP ANSWERED CORRECTLY: 'YES!'

Trump was, bottom line, asked if he believes existing laws should be enforced and if someone breaking existing law should be punished. Part of what this nation is based on is enforcement of the Rule of law. Mush like Obama, who has repeatedly used the Constitution and existing laws like some Chinese take-out A La Carte Menus based on what laws HE likes and doesn't like, are going ape-shit over Trump's answer because they don't / would not like the hypothetical law banning abortions. As a result of not LIKING such a law they would not want to see it enforced or the violator punished...based solely on the fact that they disagree with the law.

Thank GOD the legal system does not work that way...or before Obama it was not supposed to. It doesn't matter if you like a law or not, if you disagree with a law or not - you STILL have to obey it...until you can change it.

If a woman broke, violated, ignored, or bypassed and existing law should she be punished. ABSOLUTELY YES!

Obama did not like the DOM law, so he declared to the world he would not enforce it.
Obama doesn't like existing immigration law, so he ignores it.
Obama has ignored a LOT of laws, rules ,etc simply because he doesn't like them.
NOW liberals have the idea that simply because you don't like or agree with laws you can simply ignore them and should not be punished for breaking those laws you don't like.

I can so NOT wait for a new President and government that will actually enforce existing laws - all of them - and hold people accountable again!

Then Trump changed his mind.

 

[g5000]

So a President Trump would need to be warned ahead of time about all questions or circumstances that might arise? Unbelievable.
Carson defends Trump: He didn't have time to think about abortion question

The reason Trump gets tripped on question after question after question on conservative causes is because HE HAS NEVER BEEN A CONSERVATIVE.

He's a poser. That is why he is vague. That is why he evades. That is why he tries to change the subject. That is why he prevaricates. That is why he lies.

He has never once in his life had a conservative thought in his brain. Conservatism is alien technology to him. That's why he sounds very poorly coached when cornered to answer a question.

Here is what Donald Trump thought about abortion until five minutes ago:

 

[candycorn]

Why shouldn't the woman be held responsible for hiring someone to kill her child?

Very good point

If we take the right to life argument, an abortion is basically a contract on the fetus life!

Make the issue even more complicated, does it not?

Feel free to campaign on that

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, he could have been like the Hildebeast and agreed with Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood!

Sanger never said that.

 

[Dale Smith]

Your feeding instructions are printed in reverse on your forehead

Not anymore. They tried that a couple times but it didn't go so well. He kept trying to feed the mirror.

#1 Your "flame game" is lame.
#2 You lack the intellect to tackle an issue and sound even remotely informed via due diligence.
#3 (And most importantly) I know more than you and it seems to piss you off. I am here to help.

We are laughing at you, not pissed at you. But go on, go on. You are fun.

"We"? You have a mouse in your pocket? I have no doubt that what I contend and can prove is upsetting to some that suffer from cognitive dissonance...so there is no reason to waste much energy on those stuck in the left versus right paradigm that believe in their corporate "gubermint" that doesn't pass laws but rather acts, statutes and codes under admiralty law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your feeding instructions are printed in reverse on your forehead

Not anymore. They tried that a couple times but it didn't go so well. He kept trying to feed the mirror.

#1 Your "flame game" is lame.
#2 You lack the intellect to tackle an issue and sound even remotely informed via due diligence.
#3 (And most importantly) I know more than you and it seems to piss you off. I am here to help.

Ridicule is not an argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your feeding instructions are printed in reverse on your forehead

Not anymore. They tried that a couple times but it didn't go so well. He kept trying to feed the mirror.

#1 Your "flame game" is lame.
#2 You lack the intellect to tackle an issue and sound even remotely informed via due diligence.
#3 (And most importantly) I know more than you and it seems to piss you off. I am here to help.

We are laughing at you, not pissed at you. But go on, go on. You are fun.

"We"? You have a mouse in your pocket? I have no doubt that what I contend and can prove is upsetting to some that suffer from cognitive dissonance...so there is no reason to waste much energy on those stuck in the left versus right paradigm that believe in their corporate "gubermint" that doesn't pass laws but rather acts, statutes and codes under admiralty law.

Admiralty law?

Crunch only made it to Captain. Read your cereal boxes more carefully, Corky.