Sonia Sotomayor Overturned By US Supreme Court

Sotomayor could join with the five-member Catholic majority to overturn Roe vs. Wade. She would join the 5 other Catholics currently serve on the US Supreme Court: Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and the new chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090529...lYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDc290b21heW9yc3Zp

 

You and your fellow country-men are lucky to have a constitution that is (somewhat) in effect. I have a copy of your constitution and like reading it. Don't wish it away or you'll end up like those without one.

A miserable minority of the population here in England know and understand what our Magna Carta is. It's a crying shame.

 

dumbamanation. Without the right to bear arms, the other rights (such as your free speach you loving using so much, religion, right to be protected from unlawful searches and siezures, sppedy trial, due process, protection from cruel and unusualy punishments, the press, etc.) will eventually go away.

The right to bear arms is what protects a country from tyrannical governments, gives citizens the ability to defend themselves. Guns will always be in America whether its illegal or legal. Where do nearly every single one of the crazy people shootings happen? So called gun free zones. I guess the criminals didn't get the memo . The problem wiht the left is they think making more gun control laws, making it harder for an honest citizen, etc. to get a gun helps. All that happens is you hinder a persons ability to protect themselves.

Heck, in San Antonio alone we've had 3 justifiable homicides for self defense already this year. Why? Because Texas is a will issue state when it comes to licensing. Texas gives its residents the right to protect themselves. Texas actually cares about its residents.

You're just mad because in Heller v. DC SCOTUS overturned the DC gun ban as unconstitutional. They ruled the constitution does protect the individual's right to bear arms. And recognized that a gun is a way to defend yourself. Since the government can't provide for the common defense (when seconds count, the police are only minutes away).

But, alas, the concept of doing things for yourself and not relying on the government to give everything to you spoon fed, 2 bags full, is a lost concept with so called liberals. The whole naming of political leanings is retarded though. Theoretically (and it did up until the early 1900's) conservatives/republicans were for big government, and liberals/democrats were for smaller government. Then for some reason they decided to flip flop.

You don't have a right to health care. You have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Not the right to the government giving you everything.

 

New Tork Times reports that Sotomayor’s focus on race issues may be hurdle. Sotomayor is a memeber of La Raza (the Race). The motto of La Raza (the Race) is “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada" [“For the race everything, outside the race nothing”]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31011651

 

he is trying to act like a trojan. but only works on the unsuspecting and naive. usually other pugs. i like to argue with him though.

 

You guys crack me up. Half the stuff I put to print could have been written by Zibblu. That is fact. Are you sure you aren't just reading too much into it? Maybe you are just uncomfortable with liberal values in the stark bright white light of day.

 

I'm pretty sure its the Michael Moore avatar that seems to be pissing everyone off no matter what you say, even if its "WELCOME MY FRIEND!!! *ECHO*"

..........I know I'm a little irritated right now, and I don't even know why :-P

Oh wait, thats because I just found out my sites look great in every single browser on every single operating system except for Windows/IE and closes

 

HA! HA! HA! This is one of the things that so amusing to me about guns rights people. They always say stuff like this. That somehow owning a gun protects their liberties. But in the end these people don't really care about civil liberties except for their guns. During the Bush admin. all civil liberties were trampled on but these folks didn't make a peep because at least they had their guns.

Of course in reality owning a hand gun doesn't protect you from the government. It's a ridiculous concept. Maybe it had some merit to it in 1776 but today it's laughable.

 

Sorry, I just had to point out the timing of this quote, followed shortly thereafter by Zibblu defending something I put to print in a previous post. Those of you calling me a "Trojan" or "Closet Conservative" need to apologize and take it back. My diatribe represents the brilliance of liberal ideology.

Regarding the Michael Moore avatar, I cannot be held responsible of the visage of Michael Moore, one of the greatest thinkers of our time, irritates people. Great people who speak the truth for altruistic purposes are often disparaged and hated for no good reason.

 

Its laughable today because the concept of owning firearms has been demonized for decades to condition everyone that owning guns are bad. And because its now illegal to carry a firearm on your person without your lovely 0.005% approval rate by the sheriff for a CCW, police and government are now running rampant doing as they wish and are out of control.

The bankers would've never gotten away with stealing over 12 trillion dollars of tax payers money if they werent comfortable about the 2nd amendment being infringed.

The sheer arrogance of your guys' post is laughable as well. Get off your *%#ing high horse. Both you half-retarded Democrats and moron Republicans are too busy taking away each others rights to see the bigger picture that YOUR TAKING AWAY EACH OTHERS RIGHTS!!!!

No amount of sense can be reasoned with you people, and your guy's war with each other is affecting Constitutionalist's like me who are fighting to keep whatever rights we STILL HAVE LEFT, but your brains are foggy and your sight is narrow.

Without the right to bear arms there would BE NO AMERICA. The original English Colonies set out to explore and colonize the America's and discovered a desire for freedom from their tyrannical government which demanded them to surrender their arms. Our forefathers were considered, by our own definition, terrorists by Great Britain and this single right that we don't enjoy today was put in place to overthrow the government when it has become out of control the way it is today.

 

That's a silly statement. Firearms do protect you from your government, it just depends what your government is trying to do.

Zibblu, the day Obama tries to physically take the guns from The People, you'll see how protective guns are.

Besides, firearms ensure defence. Allowing firearms to be freely available means that when some punk pulls a gun out on you, it's not a one-sided fight. After a while, stupid, trigger-happy people would be extinct. You cannot refute that.

If someone obtained a gun illegally and broke into your house with the intention of harming you and/or your family, what are you going to do? Ring the police and while waiting for them to arrive, politely inform the criminal that he shouldn't have a gun because they don't protect The People from the government? Weak people shouldn't have guns anyway...

 

That says it all Source lite! +rep

 

lol why? When he makes posts like this just enjoy them for what they are. Entertainment

He just makes posts like this because well think about it, the only alternative is to actually support the Republican party and explain what ideas they have that are so great.

In other words this is (yet another) means of taking quips at the party in power without actually having to pose ideas of your own or even support them. Sort of a witty quirky feel good way to still just be the party of NO.

See how it works? So long as he keeps pretending he doesn't have to face the sad reality of what the Republicans have become.

Never mind our own ideas, Just keep the subject on the Democrats . It's a sad strategy, but ya gotta feel sorry for the little fellas. It's all they've got

 

as i said i do enjoy him and arguing with him but trojan is as good comparison as it gets.

 

Why doesn't it have merit today? It had merit in Nazi Germany, Soviet Union.. why doesn't it have merit today?

 

Because the military has such great power that a hand gun is no real deterrent. Do you really think a group of a few hundred "bubbas" with their guns is going to deter the US military with their tanks and their helicopters etc? The idea that these guns protect us "from the Government" is absolutely ridiculous.

 

Zibblu, I happen to be one of those liberals who enjoys his guns. I don't keep it to defend myself from the government. I do think it's a silly notion. But not because I don't think they'd make a difference. But because I highly doubt there will ever be a need to.

That said, in the unlikely, cooky, Michigan militia event that it did happen..... an armed nation may or may not be able to stand up against the might of the military, but it would be a hell of a deterrent. Besides, the civil war was won by the North because the southern generals thought their better equipped, better trained, and larger fighting force should have taken the hill at Gettysburgh.

 

If everyone owned a gun, what are they gonna do bomb everyone's house? Who's gonna do all the work?

 

How is espousing liberal doctrine to be taken as taking a quip at the party in power? Next you'll be telling me that praising the war in Iraq is taking a shot at Bush. It simply doesn't make sense. If I post something that accurately describes a Democratic position, liberal ideology, or Obama decision, you can either be for the position I am describing. I find it hard to understand how you can be for the position and yet describe me as being against the position. If the position is a good one, it should stand on its own merits, despite my personal opinion. If it is pure crap, it should be obvious to anyone of IQ 95 or higher.

This is the type of rhetoric I LOVE to see. It really drives home our parties strength without the need to justify our policies.

Now that allegation I take issue with. This is exactly the strategy we used with the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the ending of the Iraq war to get Bush out of office, even though we had no new ideas. This type of thing is better left unsaid.

If you really think the liberal policies I praise so much are that bad, why would I need or care about any party affiliation to point out something that truly stinks(according to you).