Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bush didn't restrict abortion. He just stopped government from paying for them.
And thereby, restricted them.
Government didn't pay for the apple I just ate.
Why is government restricting my right to eat?
It's entertaining to see how desperately the government-uber-alles fanatics will cling to their fantasies of government doing all and being all, life can't exist without government.
It's entertaining to see how desperately the government-uber-alles fanatics will cling to their fantasies of government doing all and being all, life can't exist without government.
Right, and your off-the-rails fantasy vision of the world is partly the reason the GOP was slaughtered at the polls last year in elections that weren't subject to lunatic gerrymandering.
So, what's to prevent a President Paul Ryan or President Janice Brown from issuing an Executive order that, say, bans all abortions except for when the mother's life is in danger?
Similarly, if President Obama issues an executive order that fulfills all your most extreme fantasies I have no doubt that someone will take him to court to get it vacated as unconstitutional.
You guys with all the guns are some of
the scairdiest of scairdy-cats that I know.
So, what's to prevent a President Paul Ryan or President Janice Brown from issuing an Executive order that, say, bans all abortions except for when the mother's life is in danger?
So, what's to prevent a President Paul Ryan or President Janice Brown from issuing an Executive order that, say, bans all abortions except for when the mother's life is in danger?
Well, aside from the fact that "President Paul Ryan" is probably the funniest thing I've heard all week (which is saying something considering Daily Show and Colbert are back), a president could theoretically issue an executive order that does anything. The question would be whether the courts would agree with it.
Obama threatening executive orders could simply be a political move to entice the Republicans to work with him. Kind of: "work with me or I'll do it myself and you won't like it."
Actually, they probably did. Apple growing in the US is subsidized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
Why is government restricting my right to eat?
They're not. But if they chose to stop subsidizing them and as a result they were no longer available for you to eat, then your ability to eat them would have been absolutely restricted.
Just as the Bush executive order restricted abortion. In fact, the restriction of abortion was its sole and solitary purpose.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
