One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: JoyV
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 412 next>>
Apr 17, 2024 10:12:43   #
American Scene wrote:
The usual suspects,texas and florida, both with i***t governors and stupid v**ers, ban heat safety requirements.

Because safety may interfere with business.

Why isn't this surprising?

Of course abbott and desantis spend their time in air conditioned offices and SUV's



https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4595139-florida-desantis-ban-local-heat-protections-workers/


Please read what was banned. It was the government imposed REQUIREMENT that ANYONE working outdoors for pay MUST wear heat safety gear. So the handyman who barely makes enough to feed himself and keep his truck in gas, would be required to spend big bucks meeting such requirements which he can't do so can no longer do outdoor handyman work.

There is no ban on heat safety equipment. There is a ban on the government requiring everyone to use government prescribed equipment.
Go to
Apr 17, 2024 03:32:56   #
Nelson7 wrote:
The fetus does not have a soul because it has never drawn a breath. Therefore it is not yet a person. God is clear on this point. To claim otherwise is simply you saying that God is wrong.


I'm not a Christian so maybe you can explain. You say a soul breathed into the body. So what happens if multiple souls are breathed in? What if the soul is breathed in by a cockroach? Inquiring minds want to know?
Go to
Apr 13, 2024 16:28:37   #
saltwind 78 wrote:
Smedley, The law also applies to anybody that wants to purchase a gun. He or she may be a psycho mass murderer, terrorist, felon, or unbalanced mental case. I hope and pray that my children, and grandchildren will never have to face one of these maniacs in their public school. You are correct about the ex post facto law, but as far as I know, it doesn't apply to p**********l executive actions.
The second amendment doesn't apply to weapons like machine guns which are against the law to own by civilians, because they are just too dangerous for civilians to own. It seems to me that military style assault weapons, are in the same category. I say this as a gun owner, I happen to own two 9mm pistols an S&W M&P 9 shield plus, for bringing a concealed weapon to my synagogue, and a IWI Masada tactical pistol to defend my home.
Smedley, The law also applies to anybody that want... (show quote)


You better reread the US Constitution. It does not limit arms to those which are "safe". It is not against the constitution to own an automatic weapon. At the time of the signing of the constitution, citizens could and did own automatic weapons, motors, canons, and even warships.

Restricting gun ownership for law abiding citizens will not make kids safe in gun free zones, such as schools.

And before you ban assault weapons, can you define what an assault weapon is?
Go to
Apr 13, 2024 16:16:44   #
saltwind 78 wrote:
JFlorio, You certainly are entitled to your opinion, and your right to protest a******ns. It is not only " l*****ts " that oppose pro lifers, but the large majority of all American women. My religion says that the life of a mother is more important than the life of a fetus.
All making a******n against the law will do is force poor women to seek a******ns from non qualified people. This in turn will cause more deaths of women. People with money will just go to Europe for an a******n. In a democracy, the majority rules, with protection for the minority. Women do have the right to have an a******n, as they should. After all, it is their body.
JFlorio, You certainly are entitled to your opinio... (show quote)


Very rarely is an a******n done to save the life of the mother. And if a woman only weeks or days or hours away from giving birth were at that late stage at risk of dying in labor, there is a procedure called a c-section.

By the way. Roe v Wade did NOT give women the choice to get an a******n. It gave doctors the choice to perform a******ns under the following criteria: [paraphrased]
1. In the first trimester (12 weeks) a doctor can perform an a******n without cause needing to be given.
2. In the second trimester a doctor can perform an a******n IF the doctor can show medical threat.
3. In the third trimester a doctor can perform an a******n for life threatening reasons.
Go to
Dec 20, 2023 12:57:43   #
federally indicted mattoid wrote:
The SCOTUS ruling will finally convince you eh?

Can't wait for them to chime in.

Btw, Colorado's SC just removed the ex-pres from the b****t due to his inciting the crowd to an i**********n.


Unless a president has been removed from office by impeachment, there is no such thing as an ex-president of the United States. The title is forever, including after death. Only one president at a time sits in office. But forevermore that person holds the title of President. The correct address for Obama is President Obama. For Bush is President G.W. Bush. For Reagan, who is dead, it is still President Reagan. As it is for President George Washington.
Go to
Dec 20, 2023 12:47:04   #
dwp66 wrote:
Fact is, on J** 6 Trump did nothing for almost three hours, and never tried to call in extra security when things were went bats**t crazy that day.

From your own link:

"Trump also claimed on Twitter that he directed the Guard to be deployed to the Capitol. This was not true. A New York Times report describes how he initially rebuffed and resisted calling them in for help, and White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, had to intervene. Ultimately it was Vice President Mike Pence who gave the order to deploy the Guard."

And btw, Pelosi had no part to play in any of this.
Fact is, on J** 6 Trump did nothing for almost thr... (show quote)


Trump offered days before. Pence had no authority to accept deployment of the guard on congressional federal jurisdiction. But he, as president of the Senate (which was his role on that day) was at least an acting member of congress at the time. The President of the United States has NO authority over congressional authority. And though Congress has jurisdiction, the only congressional member of congress with that authority is Speaker of the House.
Go to
Dec 20, 2023 12:22:43   #
permafrost wrote:
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-order-national-guard-156055113284

Trump did not sign an order to deploy 20000 troops on J*** 6

CLAIM: Former President Donald Trump signed an order to deploy 20,000 National Guard troops before his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on J*** 6, 2021, but was stopped by the House sergeant at arms, at the behest of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. While Trump was involved in discussions in the days prior to J*** 6 about the National Guard response, he issued no such order before or during the r**ting. Speaker Pelosi does not control National Guard troops.

THE FACTS: New footage released Thursday of House lawmakers on J*** 6 has sparked a resurgence of false claims and conspiracy theories about the i**********n.
AP News
https://apnews.com › article › fact-check-trump-order-...
Oct 18, 2022 — CLAIM: Former President Donald Trump signed an order to deploy 20,000 National Guard troops before his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on ...

Neither Pelosi nor the House sergeant at arms could have stopped an ordered deployment of National Guard troops because Congress doesn’t control the National Guard, legal experts say. Guard troops are generally controlled by governors, though they can be federalized, said William C. Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-order-... (show quote)


Congress doesn't control the National Guard and can't call them up. They can make a request for them. But only the speaker and C*****l P****e Chief can allow them to be deployed on congressional federal jurisdiction.
Go to
Dec 20, 2023 12:16:20   #
permafrost wrote:
Geez Hydro.. why do you people still post the lies of trump???

Let us look... so, you are accepting that trump, in a time when he had not yet been fired, was president of the usa and commander in chief of the military, asked Pelosi, who has nothing at all to do with the NG or capital security to move 20,000 troops to the capital...
Now, no record was found of such a request and why oh why would a person in charge, even one as dumb as trump ask a person who had no roll at all in moving security to do such a thing as that??? I know you wish the lies were true... but damn.. hang on to a tiny bit of logic and common sense...
Geez Hydro.. why do you people still post the lies... (show quote)


There are 4 people who have any degree of authority over security at the Capitol building. The Speaker of the House, the chief of the C*****l P****e, and the DC Mayor. The president can activate the DC national guard, and deploy them to most places, but not to the Capitol building. He did activate them. No one else has the jurisdiction or authority. Not the Pentagon, FBI, DOJ, or anyone else in Congress; to have accepted the offer but the Speaker of the House.

The C*****l p****e chief originally accepted only a fraction of those offered, but restricted them to unarmed traffic control well away from the Capitol building. When Trump offered an additional 20,000, the offer was approved by Army Secretary Ryan Mccarthy, but the speaker rejected the offer. If Trump had overruled the decision, he could have been rightly charged with a c**p. Later the chief requested more National Guard, but Pelosi refused.

There are multiple records of Trump's offer. First, the approval of the offer by Mccarthy in writing. Then the refusal by both Pelosi is documented. You can't refuse an offer unless an offer is made.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2021/01/12/why-the-dc-national-guards-role-was-limited-during-us-capitol-r**t/

UPDATE: After J6, Congress passed a new National Defense Authorization Act which gives the DC Mayor the authority to call up the DC National Guard, and removes the president's authority over the DC National Guard.
Go to
Dec 20, 2023 11:45:33   #
Kevyn wrote:
They are not political prisoners they are at best criminal terrorists. They can v**e while detained until they are convicted. They have waved their right to a speedy trial by their own choice to formulate a defense for the indefensible.


WHAT?????

What constitution are you reading? You are saying if you don't confess guilt, you have waived your constitutional rights!!!!
Go to
Dec 20, 2023 10:38:58   #
archie bunker wrote:
Name those nations.....


Most were kept in atrocious conditions for many months in solitary confinement while denied access to lawyers, or being allowed any phone calls. Only after whistle-blowers revealed what was going on, and the information was publicized, were they moved and gradually allowed contact with lawyers. The better housing was no longer so atrocious, but it was hardly a country club. They were still kept in special isolated confinement.
Go to
Dec 20, 2023 10:26:27   #
Milosia2 wrote:
T*****rs trying to o*******w a valid legal e******n .
Have no government .
Rot in hell or just wait to be Hanged !!!
What to they want , government protection ???????
They had it !!!!!
But still tried to destroy an e******n .
It may be only me , but I don’t care one way or another what happens to these people .
As far as I’m concerned ,
they no longer have a country !
Fack em All !!!
And Trump too .
Hang ‘em All !


The Constitutionalists, those in the MAGA movement, and even Trump supporters, did NOT want to disrupt or stop the challenges to the e*****rs b****t counts. Over a hundred challenges were made. Most by House members but several by senate members. Many of the challenges revolved around executive branch officials in certain States usurping powers the constitutions (both State and federal) gives to the legislature. Especially those States where the executive branch officials unconstitutionally certified e*****rs after or at the same time as the legislature certified e*****rs. Other challenges regarded e******n f***d. Why would those of us who cried foul want to stop the challenges? The result of the disruption was the very thing we were trying to prevent t***spired. The challenges were never dealt with completely, and Pence discarded the b****ts from the constitutionally certified e*****rs and read into the record the opposition e*****rs b****ts which were unconstitutionally certified.

Here is some food for thought.

We the people have a constitutional right to witness our federal government in action. Every time congress is in session, the people have the right to access and observe. Once upon a time that meant observing from the floor. But there came a time when an observation gallery was built which is to be open anytime congress is in session. For the J** 6 session, probably the most important session every 4 years, the gallery was locked as was the building. Perhaps those cops who let people in the building were ones who believed in following the oath and not violating our constitution. Maybe not as none of them unlocked the gallery.

Constitutionalists applied for a demonstration permit in early December to demonstrate outside the Capitol building on J** 6th. The permit included the agreement that a delegation would sit in on the session from the gallery. But they were denied entry on the day, despite it being the right of every American, as well as having it spelled out in the permit. The Constitutionalists were not associated with the Trump rally. And the request for a demonstration permit preceded the scheduling of the rally. I was asked to go in December, but declined due to having clients' dogs in training as guide dogs, so couldn't get away. I had 3 different Constitutionalists friends contact me the evening before to tell me there were Feds agitators trying to rile up the demonstrators who had camped out overnight. One wanted me to check on other members and pass on the info to be careful of the Feds.

Who Benefitted from the disruption? Those who wanted the constitution violations to stand and those who wanted to put Biden in office. (Most often the same people.)

By the way. Many people say MAGA supporters when they mean Trump supporters. The MAGA movement predates Trump's run for office. He supported the MAGA movement. The MAGA movement did not support Trump. Though many in the MAGA movement also supported Trump.
Go to
Oct 17, 2023 15:39:11   #
pescado rojo wrote:
The word "Palestine" comes from the Hebrew Pelesheth, from the Roman Palestina, and from "Philistia" or land of the Philistines. In the early days of the Palestine Mandate, Jews were also referred to as Palestinians many times. Before 1920 there was no "Palestine" per se. It was a British creation. The Arabs living there were known by their nationality, be it Jordanian, Syrian, Egyptian, wh**ever.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/Palestine


The Ottoman Empire also called any resident of the region a Palestinian. They preferred Jewish Palestinians to Arab Palestinians because Arabs left desertification in their wake while Jews improved the land and caused it to blossom.
Go to
Oct 15, 2023 17:27:18   #
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
With so few Jews, why don't they settle somewhere less dangerous???

The US has plenty of land, and is very welcoming of them...

Seems odd that they're insisting on that one little area...


Leave aside that Israel is their homeland from time immemorial, the USA is NOT welcoming to more than a very small number of Jewish immigrants, and has not been very welcoming of Jewish refugees. Other countries have been even less so.

Over the last few influxes of refugees from the middle east, Christians have been near the back of the line, just ahead of jews.
Go to
Oct 15, 2023 16:50:35   #
Ri-chard wrote:
The Jewish people lay claim to the land because THEY say THEY first held possession of it millennia ago and because THEIR God/god directly gave them the land, as THEY recorded it in THEIR Bible. But who is THEIR god/God. He for sure is not MY God...


Archeological evidence backs them. I'm not religious, so don't turn to religious writings as proof. But physical evidence backs those religious writings. Can you name a single piece of archeological evidence supporting the region was a "Palestinian" homeland? How about any physical evidence at all?
Go to
Oct 12, 2023 18:38:31   #
BIRDMAN wrote:
🤪🤪🤪🤪


Perfect analogy!
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 412 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.