That is just so convenient for you, isn’t it?Thank you for your question.
In 1976, the Democratic Party adopted a platform plank opposing the Human Life Amendment. (The Human Life Amendment (HLA) would guarantee unborn children a constitutionally recognized right to life.) In 1980, the Democratic Party’s platform defined abortion as a “reproductive right,” affirmed the ridiculous Roe v. Wade decision, and labeled “reproductive freedom as a fundamental human right.” In stark contrast, in 1972 the Democrats rejected a platform plank asserting a right to abortion. Thus, the Democrats became pro-abortion when Carter was the titular head of the party. What Carter could have done, at a minimum, was insist that the HLA be part of the Democratic platform. In 1977, he did sign the Hyde Amendment (a policy that bans federal tax dollars from being used for abortions), and thus I wrongly and regrettably did not give him credit for that earlier. But, Carter supported legal abortion for at least the last 30 years of his life, a decision I am sure he now regrets.
Absolutely one of the worst.A completely horrible President
A non-structural thing like a concept(the Monroe Doctrine) is much greater than any structural thing like a law. Legal system is not creating its own concepts it only serves the existing ones. And it is very easy to create a precedent by deploying 50 navy seals into the region.A. The Monroe Doctrine was a policy statement, and has no basis in law
B> It was designed to keep Europe out of what the US felt was it's sphere of influence
c. The US President can negotiate treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate
What relationship exists between the Department of Education and teachers unions?The DoE has been a complete & utter failure at educating our children and should be completely abolished. The teachers union has a stranglehold on education and it's past time it goes the way of the dodo.
Actually Nixon was the first to release his tax records. Trump did not you are correct but there was and is no obligation for him (or anyone else for that matter) to do so.
International relations does not function entirely at the tip of a sword, as you imagine. As for the power of a “concept,” I suggest that you read the United States Constitution, and pay particular notice to the portion which states that ratified international treaties are “the supreme law of the land.”A non-structural thing like a concept(the Monroe Doctrine) is much greater than any structural thing like a law. Legal system is not creating its own concepts it only serves the existing ones. And it is very easy to create a precedent by deploying 50 navy seals into the region.
In a real world negotiating treaties only "works" if the other side has the power to hold you accountable.
Read my second sentence again. It's because they have a comeplete stranglehold on education. They keep ****** a** teachers around simply because of tenure, don't allow for teacher competency tests, don't allow for alternatives - ie: vouchers for private schooling because they can't steal any union dues from non-members, they're constantly on strike whining for more money yet produce nothing to justify the pay raise and they don't teach - they indoctrinate students with woke garbage among many other reasons.Why should teachers be prohibited from belonging to unions, a right which every other person has?
I suppose this is the reason NATO became a liability that does not pay for itself rather than an asset. Not to mention a watered down swastika that can be seen in its logo.International relations does not function entirely at the tip of a sword, as you imagine.
It is a debate for another day how come that the concept of a "rules based order" essentially hijacked the US Constitution and its respect for a ratified international treaties.As for the power of a “concept,” I suggest that you read the United States Constitution, and pay particular notice to the portion which states that ratified international treaties are “the supreme law of the land.”
Wait till they find out how the entire insurance industry works.Wow.
And a happy new year toyouME.
That’s what it’s all about. Only me me me.
You clearly have no idea what a sepsis is so I’d rather have an MD make that call. Without having to worry about any legal repercussions of course.And abortion is never needed to save the life of a mother.
I suppose this is the reason NATO became a liability that does not pay for itself rather than an asset. Not to mention a watered down swastika that can be seen in its logo.
Thanks for your detailed clarification.In 1977, he did sign the Hyde Amendment (a policy that bans federal tax dollars from being used for abortions), and thus I wrongly and regrettably did not give him credit for that earlier. But, Carter supported legal abortion for at least the last 30 years of his life, a decision I am sure he now regrets.
If Jimmy Carter isn’t in heaven, I doubt anyone is.Thanks for your detailed clarification.
Perhaps he regrets it, or perhaps his maker is congratulating him on correctly understanding "Judge not". To me, that always seems like the trickiest challenge in the handbook, but I guess we will eventually find out.
I'll give a bit of personal experience here: My youngest sister went into the hospital a handful of years ago while pregnant with her fourth child. She had a "miscarriage" of which I put in quotes only because she had to have an abortion to save her life because of sepsis.You clearly have no idea of what sepsis is so I’d rather have an MD make that call. Without having to worry about any legal repercussions of course.
But it’s the doctor and patient who should decide this, not a bunch of “born again” politicians. Women have already died because of the Dobs decision.I'll give a bit of personal experience here: My youngest sister went into the hospital a handful of years ago while pregnant with her fourth child. She had a "miscarriage" of which I put in quotes only because she had to have an abortion to save her life because of sepsis.
I can't begin to imagine everything going through her and her husband's head to arrive at such a decision to terminate the pregnancy.
I am very pro-life and oppose abortion in all cases except one - to save the life of the mother as it did for my sister.
Quite the reception in heaven that must have been!
Having a horrible personal experience can definitely give a person a new perspective. Out of curiousity, did you allow that exception prior to your sister's experience, or were you unaware of the risks?I'll give a bit of personal experience here: My youngest sister went into the hospital a handful of years ago while pregnant with her fourth child. She had a "miscarriage" of which I put in quotes only because she had to have an abortion to save her life because of sepsis.
I can't begin to imagine everything going through her and her husband's head to arrive at such a decision to terminate the pregnancy.
I am very pro-life and oppose abortion in all cases except one - to save the life of the mother as it did for my sister.
It is the same as subverting and diverting any serious situation with a simple "let's not be too serious about it".It took a while, but Godwin's Law was finally invoked.
But from what I'm reading in this thread is either not important enough or even a positive thing for some. Unfortunately privilege doesn't guarantee brains of logic, sadly we're seeing that more and more in our society.Post presidency he was basically pro Hamas.
You (or your employer) are already subsidising the current healthcare system by the high rates most insurance companies are asking; whilst at the same time finding ways to deny as many claims as possible. What if you got that money instead of the health insurance company; and paid instead like 4-5% into a universal system where everyone was covered. I know it is counter to capitalism, but it would be no different than taxes currently being used to pay Firefighters or Policeman.Tell that to Bernie Sanders, AOC and the rest of the woke college crowd who seem to think it's fair to dip into MY wallet for THEIR poor life choices.
You're absolutely right — no one is talking about Gaza, I mean literally no news coverage and people don't post anything about it on social media at all. I had to actually google it to find any reference to it! All news agencies seem to focus on anything else other than Israel. I believe their moto is "jews — not in our news!" In fact, I was amazed to read about it here. #sarcasmAre you saying that criticizing Israel is same as being anti semitic. That is completely false. I would say today’s Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians and must be stopped but no one in the west is even bringing that up because they will be branded “anti-Semitic”. Are you going to say Bernie Sanders, a Jew, is anti semitic for criticizing Israel’s actions? You should hear and read the interviews from American doctors that went to Gaza recently. They have evidence that Israel is systematically killing women and children including babies. Even using snipers for that. How horrible!
Well if you go by the historical definition of Semitic people, then the Palestinians are also Semitic, so being critical of either side is anti-semitic.You're absolutely right — no one is talking about Gaza, I mean literally no news coverage and people don't post anything about it on social media at all. I had to actually google it to find any reference to it! All news agencies seem to focus on anything else other than Israel. I believe their moto is "jews — not in our news!" In fact, I was amazed to read about it here. #sarcasm
To be serious, criticizing Israel is not necessarily being antisemitic, however I've yet to see someone do one without the other. And please don't bring useful idiots into this, they have always existed, and always will. Their only purpose is to help the likes of you justify all you say.
Yes, that's an old and very "useful" argument, however I'm going by the historical definition of the term antisemitism.Well if you go by the historical definition of Semitic people, then the Palestinians are also Semitic, so being critical of either side is anti-semitic.
Ridiculous. Common and widespread parlance all over the world defines the term "antisemitic" to mean Jew hatred. So, just so you know, if you come across people making this argument, it just means they are ignorant or, more likely, virolently antisemitic. Good day.Well if you go by the historical definition of Semitic people, then the Palestinians are also Semitic, so being critical of either side is anti-semitic.
The claim of "genocide" is objectively false on every fair minded measure. It's a political shorthand for being anti-Israel, but it is quite obviously false.Are you saying that criticizing Israel is same as being anti semitic. That is completely false. I would say today’s Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians and must be stopped but no one in the west is even bringing that up because they will be branded “anti-Semitic”. Are you going to say Bernie Sanders, a Jew, is anti semitic for criticizing Israel’s actions? You should hear and read the interviews from American doctors that went to Gaza recently. They have evidence that Israel is systematically killing women and children including babies. Even using snipers for that. How horrible!