ADVERTISEMENT

The Declaration of Independence

kjfreeze

Gator Great
Jan 17, 2005
3,905
6,511
113

Declaration of Independence (1776)​

Ch-2-Declaration-of-Independence-Hero-Image.jpg

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Massachusetts
John Hancock
Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple
Massachusetts
Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire
Matthew Thornton
Primary Source by Richard Henry Lee, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, John Hancock (1776)
 

Declaration of Independence (1776)​

Ch-2-Declaration-of-Independence-Hero-Image.jpg

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Massachusetts
John Hancock
Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple
Massachusetts
Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire
Matthew Thornton
Primary Source by Richard Henry Lee, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, John Hancock (1776)
What is this unpatriotic drivel?
Don’t let @grandhavendiddy see this. He might turn you in to the FBI. 😉
 
What is this unpatriotic drivel?
Don’t let @grandhavendiddy see this. He might turn you in to the FBI. 😉
@grandhavendiddy logic earlier on abortion was it was the law for 50 years, why the need to change it?

Of course, the fact that abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution, you know that thing that's been around for almost 250 years, didn't register with him.

Then he went on some tirade about how people that didn't kill babies but then didn't adopt every single baby that wasn't aborted are the real evil people, not the people like him that support killing the babies in the first place.
 
@grandhavendiddy logic earlier on abortion was it was the law for 50 years, why the need to change it?

Of course, the fact that abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution, you know that thing that's been around for almost 250 years, didn't register with him.

Then he went on some tirade about how people that didn't kill babies but then didn't adopt every single baby that wasn't aborted are the real evil people, not the people like him that support killing the babies in the first place.
Whack job. Makes 300k a year and wants the government, or yours truly to pay for his kid in the event he CHOOSES to get his wife pregnant, and said pregnancy results in an autistic baby.

As the father of an Autistic son that cannot imagine life without his son, it pisses me off that someone would try to use this (a unique ability) as a reason to murder a baby. It’s freaking disgusting, shameful behavior.

@grandhavendiddy
 
Whack job. Makes 300k a year and wants the government, or yours truly to pay for his kid in the event he CHOOSES to get his wife pregnant, and said pregnancy results in an autistic baby.

As the father of an Autistic son that cannot imagine life without his son, it pisses me off that someone would try to use this (a unique ability) as a reason to murder a baby. It’s freaking disgusting, shameful behavior.

@grandhavendiddy
Feagly - you appear to have little to no ability to actually read a post and have a dialogue, so this will be the last one.

I said I paid $300K in estimated taxes. I make well over $1M+ year in K1 income.

I also said that we had two children, one of whom is autistic. She is a blessing, but she is a real challenge and will never work a day in her life.

I also said that the odds of having another child with autism are far higher. I got a vasectomy to prevent this so that that neither us nor anyone would have to support them.

Vasectomies are not 100% effective. So what happens if she gets pregnant. Are you forcing me to have a child and support it? Are you going to support it? No. At least the other poster will adopt it.

You keep saying that I choose to get my wife pregnant. Let me guess that if you had three kids that you only had intercourse three times.

Right? Come on. Human urges come far more frequently.

You focus on pedophelia. Look at the Catholic priesthood on their ability to control urges. It's human nature.

Between support for breaking into the capitol on January 6th and this, you wonder why the republican party is on track to be a permanent minority party.

Hint: it's not dominion voting machines or "the Kracken".
 
Feagly - you appear to have little to no ability to actually read a post and have a dialogue, so this will be the last one.

I said I paid $300K in estimated taxes. I make well over $1M+ year in K1 income.

I also said that we had two children, one of whom is autistic. She is a blessing, but she is a real challenge and will never work a day in her life.

I also said that the odds of having another child with autism are far higher. I got a vasectomy to prevent this so that that neither us nor anyone would have to support them.

Vasectomies are not 100% effective. So what happens if she gets pregnant. Are you forcing me to have a child and support it? Are you going to support it? No. At least the other poster will adopt it.

You keep saying that I choose to get my wife pregnant. Let me guess that if you had three kids that you only had intercourse three times.

Right? Come on. Human urges come far more frequently.

You focus on pedophelia. Look at the Catholic priesthood on their ability to control urges. It's human nature.

Between support for breaking into the capitol on January 6th and this, you wonder why the republican party is on track to be a permanent minority party.

Hint: it's not dominion voting machines or "the Kracken".
You should embrace the child as a miracle instead of destroying it because of inconvenience.
 
I also said that the odds of having another child with autism are far higher. I got a vasectomy to prevent this so that that neither us nor anyone would have to support them.

Vasectomies are not 100% effective. So what happens if she gets pregnant. Are you forcing me to have a child and support it? Are you going to support it? No. At least the other poster will adopt it.
WTF are you talking about?

If unprotected sex could lead to a pregnancy you don't want, then you have two options:

1 - Use birth control
2 - Don't have sex


Sounds like you want to just do whatever you want, and if she gets preggers, well that's what you think abortion is for.
 
Shhhhh...nobody tell malone conservatives are against birth control also

Gotta love "conservatives" like malone who what government to tell you how to have sex and what women can do with their bodies but also claim they want government out of their lprivate lives

Oh and they only want government in your sex life so long as its what conservatives personally believe

If the law about sex or privacy is something different then they believe they don't want government to have any say
 
Whack job. Makes 300k a year and wants the government, or yours truly to pay for his kid in the event he CHOOSES to get his wife pregnant, and said pregnancy results in an autistic baby.

As the father of an Autistic son that cannot imagine life without his son, it pisses me off that someone would try to use this (a unique ability) as a reason to murder a baby. It’s freaking disgusting, shameful behavior.

@grandhavendiddy
My son, my ONLY child, that was adopted is also autistic. At age 13 he's a great writer, artistic, plays a heck of a piano and is 1st chair on cello. My ONLY child - if I had been able to see the future - would I still have adopted him? You damn right I would! I bet your son is also a fantastic human being. Brings to life your world that you live in. It's been tough - was/is unbearable at times, but never for one second have we second guessed our decision.
 
Shhhhh...nobody tell malone conservatives are against birth control also

Gotta love "conservatives" like malone who what government to tell you how to have sex and what women can do with their bodies but also claim they want government out of their lprivate lives

Oh and they only want government in your sex life so long as its what conservatives personally believe

If the law about sex or privacy is something different then they believe they don't want government to have any say
Precisiely. Then Republicans lose otherwise very winnable elections because their own evangelical protestant beliefs overshadow other more practical and far more important policies.

And also, shhhh, don't tell them that the only reason Trump flipped to be pro-life and had Pence as his VP was to win over the Evangelical vote. The only reason. He now believes Pence is a pious, simplistic traitor.

He doesn't believe, for one minute, that government should get into the lives of women any more than they should be rifling through his things at Mar-a-lago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RayGravesGhost
Feagly - you appear to have little to no ability to actually read a post and have a dialogue, so this will be the last one.

I said I paid $300K in estimated taxes. I make well over $1M+ year in K1 income.

I also said that we had two children, one of whom is autistic. She is a blessing, but she is a real challenge and will never work a day in her life.

I also said that the odds of having another child with autism are far higher. I got a vasectomy to prevent this so that that neither us nor anyone would have to support them.

Vasectomies are not 100% effective. So what happens if she gets pregnant. Are you forcing me to have a child and support it? Are you going to support it? No. At least the other poster will adopt it.

You keep saying that I choose to get my wife pregnant. Let me guess that if you had three kids that you only had intercourse three times.

Right? Come on. Human urges come far more frequently.

You focus on pedophelia. Look at the Catholic priesthood on their ability to control urges. It's human nature.

Between support for breaking into the capitol on January 6th and this, you wonder why the republican party is on track to be a permanent minority party.

Hint: it's not dominion voting machines or "the Kracken".
What a horrible person . I truly cannot believe how selfish you are. You have "democrat" all over you, son. I really think you are a bad person. I am embarrassed that you are a Gator fan
 
My son, my ONLY child, that was adopted is also autistic. At age 13 he's a great writer, artistic, plays a heck of a piano and is 1st chair on cello. My ONLY child - if I had been able to see the future - would I still have adopted him? You damn right I would! I bet your son is also a fantastic human being. Brings to life your world that you live in. It's been tough - was/is unbearable at times, but never for one second have we second guessed our decision.
I do not have children..but his post really offended me. He seems embarrassed, and put out because his child is not what he expected, or wanted. God has a plan. Hopefully, one day he will realize this. I just hope through his selfishness, his child is loved
 
Precisiely. Then Republicans lose otherwise very winnable elections because their own evangelical protestant beliefs overshadow other more practical and far more important policies.

And also, shhhh, don't tell them that the only reason Trump flipped to be pro-life and had Pence as his VP was to win over the Evangelical vote. The only reason. He now believes Pence is a pious, simplistic traitor.

He doesn't believe, for one minute, that government should get into the lives of women any more than they should be rifling through his things at Mar-a-lago.
This is such a revealing post.

Multiple times now, you have claimed that abortion is a non-critical issue, and that republicans need to compromise their moral beliefs on this issue in order to win elections.

lf abortion is truly a non-critical issue....then why doesn't the left compromise? See that thought never enters your head and you never mention it as a possibility. Thus proving the point @jfegaly made: The left NEVER compromises.

Second, you seem to imply that only evangelicals are adamantly against abortion. This is an incredibly extremist position to take, it would be like saying that anyone who is in favor of abortion is really a satan worshipper.

As for Trump's pro-life beliefs and how sincere they are, I'll defer to the brilliant Mollie Hemmingway. Like all decent people, Mollie is very strongly Pro-Life. And she was NOT a Trump fan. At all.

What seemed to win her over with Trump was his Pro-Life stances. She saw that his work was matching his words, and she saw him to be sincere.

The funny thing is, you claim republicans need to drop abortion and focus on 'critical' issues like border security. Trump's actions mirror your claims: Border security is his top focus, not abortion. In fact, abortion is barely a Top 10 issue that Trump focuses on. Everyone knows where he stands, but it's not an issue he brings up every day like border security, the economy and draining the swamp.

And again, you are complaining about a problem that doesn't exist. You have your access to abortion anytime you decide you want to have unprotected sex and not deal with the consequences. Republicans have never said abortion should be banned, they have said it should GO BACK TO THE STATES and not be a FEDERAL issue.

Which of course makes perfect common sense. Should the moral beliefs of Alabama be forced on everyone in Colorado, or vice versa?

You live in one of the bluest states in the nation. You will never want for an abortion in your state, as sad as that is to say.

So in the end, you are arguing over nothing, over an issue that you claim is 'non-critical'. Wouldn't it have made more sense to just compromise your wants and move on?
 
Feagly - you appear to have little to no ability to actually read a post and have a dialogue, so this will be the last one.

I said I paid $300K in estimated taxes. I make well over $1M+ year in K1 income.

I also said that we had two children, one of whom is autistic. She is a blessing, but she is a real challenge and will never work a day in her life.

I also said that the odds of having another child with autism are far higher. I got a vasectomy to prevent this so that that neither us nor anyone would have to support them.

Vasectomies are not 100% effective. So what happens if she gets pregnant. Are you forcing me to have a child and support it? Are you going to support it? No. At least the other poster will adopt it.

You keep saying that I choose to get my wife pregnant. Let me guess that if you had three kids that you only had intercourse three times.

Right? Come on. Human urges come far more frequently.

You focus on pedophelia. Look at the Catholic priesthood on their ability to control urges. It's human nature.

Between support for breaking into the capitol on January 6th and this, you wonder why the republican party is on track to be a permanent minority party.

Hint: it's not dominion voting machines or "the Kracken".
No, I just know that most of what you post is BS. Including you saying you make a million dollars and pay 300k in taxes. If so, then get a new accountant, because smart rich folk find ways to not pay that high of a percentage. Either way, your picking nits to gloss over the meat and potatoes of the discussion.

Anyone with an IQ above 50 can see you’re a flaming full fledged liberal. Stop the act.

Multiple times now you have mentioned myself or the government paying for your possible autistic child in the event you aren’t allowed to murder your baby upon finding out it has a disability. It (YOU) are disgusting. There are MANY ways to avoud pregnancy without using murder to do so. Stop making excuses.

To recap your last post.

1. You support murdering babies
2. You defend pedophilia (I wonder why)
3. You think Jan 6th was an insurrection, yet never mention being appalled by the summer of love unless someone else brings it up.
4. You feel the need to attempt to validate yourself to the board by talking about your financial success. Where have we heard this behavior before? Hint: every lib here.

YOU are a flaming liberal. At least have the balls to own it. You have been outed. It’s ok, you are out of the closet now Mittens.

oh, and we have two children, and stopped trying to have children after the last one. 10 years ago. We haven’t been pregnant since. Why? Because it’s easy to find ways to prevent if you CHOOSE to do so. Stop the BS.
 
Last edited:
Republicans have never said abortion should be banned, they have said it should GO BACK TO THE STATES and not be a FEDERAL issue.



National Abortion Ban Could Come To A Vote If Republicans Win Congress
The NPR Politics Podcast
May 9, 20224:53 PM ET

After initially being reluctant to talk about the substance of the leaked Supreme Court opinion, GOP lawmakers have begun to campaign on the exaggerated notion that Democratic lawmakers support abortion until the moment of birth. And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell raised the possibility of bringing a national abortion ban to a vote if Republicans take power in the midterms, though the Biden White House would almost certainly veto such a bill.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...tus-ruling-overturn-roe/9631996002/?gnt-cfr=1
McConnell calls US abortion ban 'possible,' says he won't change filibuster to pass it
GOP officials are advising to candidates to soft-pedal the prospects of anti-abortion legislation as they battle Democrats for control of Congress



https://www.wmur.com/article/republicans-new-hampshire-1st-district-abortion/40534354#
Republicans running in New Hampshire's 1st District split on federal abortion restrictions
 
Vasectomies are not 100% effective. So what happens if she gets pregnant. Are you forcing me to have a child and support it? Are you going to support it? No. At least the other poster will adopt it.
After reading this, I really must admit that you are a total POS. And a Demo-Communist dirt-bag. You would abort your next probable even if it was autistic.
 
Whack job. Makes 300k a year and wants the government, or yours truly to pay for his kid in the event he CHOOSES to get his wife pregnant, and said pregnancy results in an autistic baby.

As the father of an Autistic son that cannot imagine life without his son, it pisses me off that someone would try to use this (a unique ability) as a reason to murder a baby. It’s freaking disgusting, shameful behavior.

@grandhavendiddy
@grandhavendiddy called you Feagly.
rotf.gif
 
No, I just know that most of what you post is BS. Including you saying you make a million dollars and pay 300k in taxes. If so, then get a new accountant, because smart rich folk find ways to not pay that high of a percentage. Either way, your picking nits to gloss over the meat and potatoes of the discussion.

Anyone with an IQ above 50 can see you’re a flaming full fledged liberal. Stop the act.

Multiple times now you have mentioned myself or the government paying for your possible autistic child in the event you aren’t allowed to murder your baby upon finding out it has a disability. It (YOU) are disgusting. There are MANY ways to avoud pregnancy without using murder to do so. Stop making excuses.

To recap your last post.

1. You support murdering babies
2. You defend pedophilia (I wonder why)
3. You think Jan 6th was an insurrection, yet never mention being appalled by the summer of love unless someone else brings it up.
4. You feel the need to attempt to validate yourself to the board by talking about your financial success. Where have we heard this behavior before? Hint: every lib here.


YOU are a flaming liberal. At least have the balls to own it. You have been outed. It’s ok, you are out of the closet now Mittens.

oh, and we have two children, and stopped trying to have children after the last one. 10 years ago. We haven’t been pregnant since. Why? Because it’s easy to find ways to prevent if you CHOOSE to do so. Stop the BS.
This makes me think this is bsucks sock account
 
This is such a revealing post.

Multiple times now, you have claimed that abortion is a non-critical issue, and that republicans need to compromise their moral beliefs on this issue in order to win elections.

lf abortion is truly a non-critical issue....then why doesn't the left compromise? See that thought never enters your head and you never mention it as a possibility. Thus proving the point @jfegaly made: The left NEVER compromises.

Second, you seem to imply that only evangelicals are adamantly against abortion. This is an incredibly extremist position to take, it would be like saying that anyone who is in favor of abortion is really a satan worshipper.

As for Trump's pro-life beliefs and how sincere they are, I'll defer to the brilliant Mollie Hemmingway. Like all decent people, Mollie is very strongly Pro-Life. And she was NOT a Trump fan. At all.

What seemed to win her over with Trump was his Pro-Life stances. She saw that his work was matching his words, and she saw him to be sincere.

The funny thing is, you claim republicans need to drop abortion and focus on 'critical' issues like border security. Trump's actions mirror your claims: Border security is his top focus, not abortion. In fact, abortion is barely a Top 10 issue that Trump focuses on. Everyone knows where he stands, but it's not an issue he brings up every day like border security, the economy and draining the swamp.

And again, you are complaining about a problem that doesn't exist. You have your access to abortion anytime you decide you want to have unprotected sex and not deal with the consequences. Republicans have never said abortion should be banned, they have said it should GO BACK TO THE STATES and not be a FEDERAL issue.

Which of course makes perfect common sense. Should the moral beliefs of Alabama be forced on everyone in Colorado, or vice versa?

You live in one of the bluest states in the nation. You will never want for an abortion in your state, as sad as that is to say.

So in the end, you are arguing over nothing, over an issue that you claim is 'non-critical'. Wouldn't it have made more sense to just compromise your wants and move on?
Let's indeed go through this. You seem to want to have some semblance of a rational argument. I agree with a number of your points, let's see if you can be an honest person and agree with some of mine.

1. The left should compromise and agree that when the fetus is viable outside of the womb, it should never be aborted except for the life of a mother. We can discuss whether this should be 15 weeks, 25 weeks, etc.

2. Evangelicals, Catholics and many other faiths hold a similar view. If they want to maintain that view, I applaud it. If we are going to be precise, it is because of the evangelical vote and it's important (echoes of the 1980s moral majority), that Trump needed to be pro-life in stated view and get Pence. Now, Trump ultimately kept his word in the three judges that over-turned Roe. Did those judges lie in their confirmation hearings and what they told individuals such as Susan Collins. Different discussion for a different day.

3. On Trump and focus - agreed. Privately he knows, electorally, it is a bad issue for republicans.

4. Other candidates though are running on it or have to defend it and are getting trounced in the polls. Take Tudor Dixon. Down by 15. It also, has significant issues on holding the senate.

You want to hold Fauci to account? Impeach Mayorkas? Stop Biden? You need to senate. It's not just Trump.

Agreed?

5. States versus Federal issue - that is a compelling position. Even, as I noted, RGB noted that the reasoning was not solid. Now, your peers here have said over and over that it is a moral issue and the most primary one.

6. Stated versus Federal - now, tell me, Ghost. Put it to the states. Got it. Michigan had 750,000 people put it on the ballot. The republican electors rejected it. HOW AGAIN IS THIS DEMOCRATIC. Put it to a vote for the people where people can vote their beliefs.

7. Michigan is one of the bluest states in the nation? It went for Trump in 2016. Trump and John James lost by 100,000 votes.

So, here is a compromise. Let's see if you agree with it:

Let each state vote by popular vote. If it holds in Alabama and falls in Kansas (already did), Michigan, Florida and other states, are you good?

Have we compromised? If so - terrific. And I would hope that many issues would be resolved that way.

To those who think this is a "liberal" position, no NPR bag toting liberal would agree with the above. Ghost is absolutely right here on lack of compromise.

Let me agree with Ghost that the left can be as authoritarian and non-compromising as what they accuse the right to be and have profoundly negative outcomes for the populations that they purport to protect. Look no further than school lockdowns and learning loss on black and brown communities.

So, I have agreed with four of your points. Can you read this and let's see if you can at least agree, in good faith with one. Just one, that's all.
 
Last edited:
Let's indeed go through this. You seem to want to have some semblance of a rational argument. I agree with a number of your points, let's see if you can be an honest person and agree with some of mine.

1. The left should compromise and agree that when the fetus is viable outside of the womb, it should never be aborted except for the life of a mother. We can discuss whether this should be 15 weeks, 25 weeks, etc.

2. Evangelicals, Catholics and many other faiths hold a similar view. If they want to maintain that view, I applaud it. If we are going to be precise, it is because of the evangelical vote and it's important (echoes of the 1980s moral majority), that Trump needed to be pro-life in stated view and get Pence. Now, Trump ultimately kept his word in the three judges that over-turned Roe. Did those judges lie in their confirmation hearings and what they told individuals such as Susan Collins. Different discussion for a different day.

3. On Trump and focus - agreed. Privately he knows, electorally, it is a bad issue for republicans.

4. Other candidates though are running on it or have to defend it and are getting trounced in the polls. Take Tudor Dixon. Down by 15. It also, has significant issues on holding the senate.

You want to hold Fauci to account? Impeach Mayorkas? Stop Biden? You need to senate. It's not just Trump.

Agreed?

5. States versus Federal issue - that is a compelling position. Even, as I noted, RGB noted that the reasoning was not solid. Now, your peers here have said over and over that it is a moral issue and the most primary one.

6. Stated versus Federal - now, tell me, Ghost. Put it to the states. Got it. Michigan had 750,000 people put it on the ballot. The republican electors rejected it. HOW AGAIN IS THIS DEMOCRATIC. Put it to a vote for the people where people can vote their beliefs.

7. Michigan is one of the bluest states in the nation? It went for Trump in 2016. Trump and John James lost by 100,000 votes.

So, here is a compromise. Let's see if you agree with it:

Let each state vote by popular vote. If it holds in Alabama and falls in Kansas (already did), Michigan, Florida and other states, are you good?

Have we compromised? If so - terrific. And I would hope that many issues would be resolved that way.

To those who think this is a "liberal" position, no NPR bag toting liberal would agree with the above. Ghost is absolutely right here on lack of compromise.

Let me agree with Ghost that the left can be as authoritarian and non-compromising as what they accuse the right to be and have profoundly negative outcomes for the populations that they purport to protect. Look no further than school lockdowns and learning loss on black and brown communities.

So, I have agreed with four of your points. Can you read this and let's see if you can at least agree, in good faith with one.
You are moderate for sure, but if you support Joe or Hillary you are a puppet for the progressive movement. Stand on a line and don't budge if you are truly convicted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gatordad3
1. The left should compromise and agree that when the fetus is viable outside of the womb, it should never be aborted except for the life of a mother. We can discuss whether this should be 15 weeks, 25 weeks, etc.
Just so I have this clear, are you saying the left's COMPROMISE on abortion should be that the left agrees that the baby should NEVER be killed AFTER THE MOTHER HAS GIVEN BIRTH????

That's your idea of what a 'compromise' should look like, from the left?

So I'm guessing you think the right should compromise and allow ALL abortions, but the left 'compromises' and says there will be LIMITED killing of the baby AFTER it has been born?????

Is that seriously what you are saying here?
 
Let's indeed go through this. You seem to want to have some semblance of a rational argument. I agree with a number of your points, let's see if you can be an honest person and agree with some of mine.

1. The left should compromise and agree that when the fetus is viable outside of the womb, it should never be aborted except for the life of a mother. We can discuss whether this should be 15 weeks, 25 weeks, etc.

2. Evangelicals, Catholics and many other faiths hold a similar view. If they want to maintain that view, I applaud it. If we are going to be precise, it is because of the evangelical vote and it's important (echoes of the 1980s moral majority), that Trump needed to be pro-life in stated view and get Pence. Now, Trump ultimately kept his word in the three judges that over-turned Roe. Did those judges lie in their confirmation hearings and what they told individuals such as Susan Collins. Different discussion for a different day.

3. On Trump and focus - agreed. Privately he knows, electorally, it is a bad issue for republicans.

4. Other candidates though are running on it or have to defend it and are getting trounced in the polls. Take Tudor Dixon. Down by 15. It also, has significant issues on holding the senate.

You want to hold Fauci to account? Impeach Mayorkas? Stop Biden? You need to senate. It's not just Trump.

Agreed?

5. States versus Federal issue - that is a compelling position. Even, as I noted, RGB noted that the reasoning was not solid. Now, your peers here have said over and over that it is a moral issue and the most primary one.

6. Stated versus Federal - now, tell me, Ghost. Put it to the states. Got it. Michigan had 750,000 people put it on the ballot. The republican electors rejected it. HOW AGAIN IS THIS DEMOCRATIC. Put it to a vote for the people where people can vote their beliefs.

7. Michigan is one of the bluest states in the nation? It went for Trump in 2016. Trump and John James lost by 100,000 votes.

So, here is a compromise. Let's see if you agree with it:

Let each state vote by popular vote. If it holds in Alabama and falls in Kansas (already did), Michigan, Florida and other states, are you good?

Have we compromised? If so - terrific. And I would hope that many issues would be resolved that way.

To those who think this is a "liberal" position, no NPR bag toting liberal would agree with the above. Ghost is absolutely right here on lack of compromise.

Let me agree with Ghost that the left can be as authoritarian and non-compromising as what they accuse the right to be and have profoundly negative outcomes for the populations that they purport to protect. Look no further than school lockdowns and learning loss on black and brown communities.

So, I have agreed with four of your points. Can you read this and let's see if you can at least agree, in good faith with one.
On point 2...no they did not. they said that they would UPHOLD the Constitution. Can you show me ANYWHERE in the Constitution that Apportion was legal?
 
Just so I have this clear, are you saying the left's COMPROMISE on abortion should be that the left agrees that the baby should NEVER be killed AFTER THE MOTHER HAS GIVEN BIRTH????

That's your idea of what a 'compromise' should look like, from the left?

So I'm guessing you think the right should compromise and allow ALL abortions, but the left 'compromises' and says there will be LIMITED killing of the baby AFTER it has been born?????

Is that seriously what you are saying here?
You should see some more of his other “compromises”

elect pubs that vote with dems
If you don’t let me murder my baby you pay for it
Don’t follow the constitution, follow the polls in kansas.
 
grandhavendiddy said:
Let each state vote by popular vote. If it holds in Alabama and falls in Kansas (already did), Michigan, Florida and other states, are you good?



Show me THIS in the Constitution, and I am good with it. You see, this has already been voted on, and we are NOT a democracy! Libs DO NOT UNDERSTAND the difference. Trump appointed CONSTITUTIONALISTS!! Not political activists like you snowflakes do. Snowflake SC justices MOSTLY cast their vote politically...not constitutionally. We will not put up with that. Neiter will God Almighty...he gave US Donald J Trump
 
grandhavendiddy said:
Let each state vote by popular vote. If it holds in Alabama and falls in Kansas (already did), Michigan, Florida and other states, are you good?



Show me THIS in the Constitution, and I am good with it. You see, this has already been voted on, and we are NOT a democracy! Libs DO NOT UNDERSTAND the difference. Trump appointed CONSTITUTIONALISTS!! Not political activists like you snowflakes do. Snowflake SC justices MOSTLY cast their vote politically...not constitutionally. We will not put up with that. Neiter will God Almighty...he gave US Donald J Trump

Sure.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. Id.

So, the states can put it to a popular vote. Michigan has an explicit provision for this for ballot initiatives. The threshold was ~450,000 votes. The amount garnered was ~750,000 or 66% above the state approved threshold.

And the electors barred it.

You are spot on. We are not a "democracy" per se, but a Constitutional Republic. (by the way, I believe strongly in the electoral college, etc.)


To your credit on a different thread, you said "I do not care, but Abortion rights are not in constitution. The states should decide". Let's waive 50 years of precedent (again, not material here)

Are we still good with the states, just like I proposed above, decide?
 
You should see some more of his other “compromises”

elect pubs that vote with dems
If you don’t let me murder my baby you pay for it
Don’t follow the constitution, follow the polls in kansas.
Yeah what he suggested isn't a compromise at all, so maybe I misunderstood what he said.

And I don't remember what the deal was, but I believe that Kansas poll was flawed. Don't care enough to look it up, it obviously gave him the result he wanted so he's running with it.
 
So, the states can put it to a popular vote. Michigan has an explicit provision for this for ballot initiatives. The threshold was ~450,000 votes. The amount garnered was ~750,000 or 66% above the state approved threshold.

And the electors barred it.
Not sure I understand what you are saying here. Did the electors break the law? You seem to be implying that the law said you went by popular vote, but the electors didn't do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jfegaly
Sure.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. Id.

So, the states can put it to a popular vote. Michigan has an explicit provision for this for ballot initiatives. The threshold was ~450,000 votes. The amount garnered was ~750,000 or 66% above the state approved threshold.

And the electors barred it.

You are spot on. We are not a "democracy" per se, but a Constitutional Republic. (by the way, I believe strongly in the electoral college, etc.)


To your credit on a different thread, you said "I do not care, but Abortion rights are not in constitution. The states should decide". Let's waive 50 years of precedent (again, not material here)

Are we still good with the states, just like I proposed above, decide?
Personally, I think it is about # 25 in importance to me. I do not believe it is my job to make someone believe as I do...HOWEVER...I AM a constitutionalist...and abortion is not, and never has been part of the Constitution. I would not use it personally. As far as "precedence" The Constitution is 244 yrs old...there is WAY more precedence WITHOUT than with. I do not buy that shallow arguement
 
  • Like
Reactions: jfegaly
Sure.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. Id.

So, the states can put it to a popular vote. Michigan has an explicit provision for this for ballot initiatives. The threshold was ~450,000 votes. The amount garnered was ~750,000 or 66% above the state approved threshold.

And the electors barred it.

You are spot on. We are not a "democracy" per se, but a Constitutional Republic. (by the way, I believe strongly in the electoral college, etc.)


To your credit on a different thread, you said "I do not care, but Abortion rights are not in constitution. The states should decide". Let's waive 50 years of precedent (again, not material here)

Are we still good with the states, just like I proposed above, decide?
We are good with state legislators making laws. Then the electorate following said laws. If the legislators then decide to change the law again, then so be it, they do not have to put it to a vote unless the states legislators create a law that says they HAVE to do so. The voters then decide who their representation is on the next election cycle.

Are we good with following Kansas law? Or are you wanting every state to create a unified approach? Because that goes against leaving it up to the STATE.
 
Personally, I think it is about # 25 in importance to me. I do not believe it is my job to make someone believe as I do...HOWEVER...I AM a constitutionalist...and abortion is not, and never has been part of the Constitution. I would not use it personally. As far as "precedence" The Constitution is 244 yrs old...there is WAY more precedence WITHOUT than with. I do not buy that shallow argument
You asked me to point you to the constitution. I did just that.

Again, on RVW, I said it is "not material here".

I tried to agree with you on every other point. Let me repeat the question:

"Are we still good with the states, just like I proposed above, decide."?
 
Just so I have this clear, are you saying the left's COMPROMISE on abortion should be that the left agrees that the baby should NEVER be killed AFTER THE MOTHER HAS GIVEN BIRTH????

That's your idea of what a 'compromise' should look like, from the left?

So I'm guessing you think the right should compromise and allow ALL abortions, but the left 'compromises' and says there will be LIMITED killing of the baby AFTER it has been born?????

Is that seriously what you are saying here?
No answer, so I'll assume you meant this as I stated.

How in the world do you view that as the left compromising?!? You're wanting republicans to give up everything, and the left 'compromises' on something only the most extreme wing of the party would ever push for anyway.

That's not compromise. That's not even in the same universe as compromise.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT