• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

1 in 5 Pharmacies Hinders Teens' Access to 'Morning-After' Pill: Study

Ockham said:
You don't have to slow down... please continue. Tell me more about how different legalized killing is from legalized murder... so far you've established both are made up words, but you've agreed to legalized killing instead of using the word murder. This is where we talk about denial again, and how everything you say is facts in your mind.

How does that make you feel?
Click to expand...

I never said legalized killing is a made up word you asked me for an acceptable word and I gave you one

if I used your broken logic rape and sex would be the same thing LMAO

I mean if I force sex on my wife because she likes it that way that must be rape right? oh wait one is legal and one isnt or are they really sooooooo different to you? <end sarcasm>

LMAO

sorry Ill stik to facts :shrug:
 
Ockham said:
Are all three very different? Do dictionary's not contain facts? Is reality not reflective of facts or is it all just maybe an imaginary dream perhaps?
Click to expand...

no they are not different, they all agree with me and all prove you wrong, we have very much in common :D LMAO
 
Damn sorry I gotta go :(

Ill check back to see if you understand facts vs reality later

just a recap, the facts are:

abortion is not murder
abortion is not legalized murder

later
 
Objective-J said:
I never said legalized killing is a made up word you asked me for an acceptable word and I gave you one
Click to expand...
Oh. but you did.

Objective-J said:
no I cant because its is a made up word, not a non-made up word.
Click to expand...

Tsk tsk.

Objective-J said:
if I used your broken logic rape and sex would be the same thing LMAO
Click to expand...
Actually the correct analogy would be sex and intercourse. But you're still learning and I don't want to dampen your spirits.

Objective-J said:
I mean if I force sex on my wife because she likes it that way that must be rape right?
Click to expand...
Factually, husbands can rape their wives in certain circumstances.

Objective-J said:
oh wait one is legal and one isnt or are they really sooooooo different to you? <end sarcasm>
Click to expand...
So your saying killing is legal but murder isn't? Or are you saying murders legal and killing isn't? Care to specify?

Objective-J said:
sorry Ill stik to facts :shrug:
Click to expand...

I thought everything you say is a fact isn't it?
 
Objective-J said:
if you say so but NO that is NOT my argument no matter how many times you repeat it LMAO nor has it every been my argument and I LMAO because you are factually wrong and misrepresenting my argument and its base

my argument was VERY specific yours is a blanket statement that I would never make LMAO
Click to expand...

Your argument is that if a pharmacy has this and denies you access to it, that it's discrimination. I'm not making blanket statements, I merely going off of what you type.
 
Objective-J said:
Damn sorry I gotta go :(

Ill check back to see if you understand facts vs reality later

just a recap, the facts are:

abortion is not murder
abortion is not legalized murder

later
Click to expand...

Awww... too bad. I'll help you yet you'll see. We'll get that denial and your ignorance of facts and opinion and you're inability to differentiate between killing and forgetting what you said just minutes before all straightened out. You'll see.
 
Objective-J said:
no they are not different, they all agree with me and all prove you wrong, we have very much in common :D LMAO
Click to expand...

Do inanimate objects always agree with you or just sometimes?
 
Ikari said:
Your argument is that if a pharmacy has this and denies you access to it, that it's discrimination. I'm not making blanket statements, I merely going off of what you type.
Click to expand...

There is no argument Ikari... after about 40 posts in the last 20 minutes, I'm convinced it's juvenile delusion. But it sure was fun pressing the buttons... sooooo easy. :lol:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Nope. Like I said it pretty much always does.
Click to expand...

That doesn't even make sense.


With the meanings and intents applied to things that occur that the founders didn't consider, but are still easily applicable.
Click to expand...

So the commerce clause that is a dispute clause between the listed members and no one else like for example business, and individuals not only means everyone but actually implies control over interstate commerce and not simply a dispute clause between the listed members as the founders made clear. So when the founders say its dispute clause its perfectly reasonable to say they mean control over interstate commerce. Even if they never said such a thing or logically it would imply such a thing.

The welfare clause that was meant so laws covered everyone and not simply one providence, town or state actually means to provide for welfare of the people with the use of safety net programs. An idea that existed in their time and they flatly rejected. Basically, they wrote it to mean something but its ok if we take it mean something that they rejected and would never actually place in the document in any stretch of the imagination. Because that is accurate to the purpose and intent of the clause. Right....

Wrong, of course. Everything you mentioned is right there in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Everything I said is purposely picked out because it doesn't imply to what is actually written and what it means.

It is easy to apply things there to things that happen today.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. That doesn't mean anything.

That's what makes the document so great and so timeless. If this wasn't possible, we'd have to rewrite the Constitution every 50 years or so.
Click to expand...

Your argument is just a generic living constitution argument. If we can't add to the meaning of things then we simply can't function as a society. All it really is a way to say if the government can't grow endlessly than government can't function. Its not based on any solid proof what so ever and all it really is rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
Do inanimate objects always agree with you or just sometimes?
Click to expand...

Post 150+ lets look at that facts that still remain :D

fact 1: abortion is not murder
fact 2: abortion is not legalized murder because there is no such thing

this was true today, was true yesterday and will be true tomorrow also :D
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, it's an argument that is an accurate description of the the Constitution's application. Like I said... everything is there.
Click to expand...

Like I said the living Constitution is not meant to be accurate to the purpose and intent of the clauses and yes that includes the description of the Constitution. It is a way to change what is written to what we want to be there. That is it. I frankly grow tired of these excuses people dream up about this nonsense that was found out of what it is more than two centuries ago.
 
Ikari said:
Your argument is that if a pharmacy has this and denies you access to it, that it's discrimination. I'm not making blanket statements, I merely going off of what you type.
Click to expand...



wrong again, still not specific enough nor was it what I typed. If you actually paid attention to the debate I was having it was even more specific than that, and of course it would HAVE to be to equal discrimination. Try again. Also what you just said is NOT what you said previously either your original statement was VERY blanket, this one is better but still not what I said.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
It's not discrimination. No one HAS to sell the drug if they do not want to.
Click to expand...

You probably found this out already but he simply doesn't understand discrimination law.
 
Henrin said:
You probably found this out already but he simply doesn't understand discrimination law.
Click to expand...

LMAO it must really bother you when I point out your lies and ask you to back up your false claims :laughat:
 
muciti said:
People in this country are too weak willed to boycott anything. Even if they released the names of them and the companies put up posters bragging about it the majority of their customer base would still go there if they had the cheapest values. This is American. People here dont give a crap about values, only greed.
Click to expand...
I have values, and I care about a lot of stuff.
 
Ockham said:
Ok legalized killing then. See... I can compromise and we can agree. Legalized killing it is.
Click to expand...

Legalized killing = abortion? Yeah, I can agree with that. I've been using a near identical term for a while. It is biologically accurate I believe.
 
Henrin said:
Like I said the living Constitution is not meant to be accurate to the purpose and intent of the clauses and yes that includes the description of the Constitution. It is a way to change what is written to what we want to be there. That is it. I frankly grow tired of these excuses people dream up about this nonsense that was found out of what it is more than two centuries ago.
Click to expand...

Nah. It's tiring listening to literalists who don't even understand the purpose of the Necessary and Proper Clause and how this applies to the concept of the living Constitution. Not only did Hamilton discuss this, but Madison did too... in Federalist 44. You want to hold onto the precise words of a 200+ year old document, that's fine. Wasn't it's intent.
 
Objective-J said:
LMAO it must really bother you when I point out your lies and ask you to back up your false claims :laughat:
Click to expand...

Objective... did you ever find the law that indicates it is discriminatory to NOT sell a product to someone based on race or religion?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Nah. It's tiring listening to literalists who don't even understand the purpose of the Necessary and Proper Clause and how this applies to the concept of the living Constitution. Not only did Hamilton discuss this, but Madison did too... in Federalist 44. You want to hold onto the precise words of a 200+ year old document, that's fine. Wasn't it's intent.
Click to expand...

The necessary and proper clause only allows the government to enact laws necessary to carry out the enumerated powers. It doesn't allow them to breach other enumerated powers or to create new powers.

Try again..
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
The necessary and proper clause only allows the government to enact laws necessary to carry out the enumerated powers.

Try again..
Click to expand...

Sure. And those enumerated powers are elastic. Madison spoke about this in Federalist 44. He discussed for other ways this clause could have been expressed, all more rigidly, and why they would not have worked.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Sure. And those enumerated powers are elastic. Madison spoke about this in Federalist 44. He discussed for other ways this clause could have been expressed, all more rigidly, and why they would not have worked.
Click to expand...

Elastic inside what I said earlier. Why does it being elastic all of sudden mean it can stretch so that the original intent is no longer followed?
 
Henrin said:
Elastic inside what I said earlier. Why does it being elastic all of sudden mean it can stretch so that the original intent is no longer followed?
Click to expand...

The breadth of the enumerated powers are what are elastic thought the Necessary and Proper Clause. Original intent is followed.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The breadth of the enumerated powers are what are elastic thought the Necessary and Proper Clause. Original intent is followed.
Click to expand...

There is a post you didn't respond to that shows otherwise.
 
Henrin said:
There is a post you didn't respond to that shows otherwise.
Click to expand...

That post doesn't address the Necessary and Proper Clause. That's what I'm discussing, here.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That post doesn't address the Necessary and Proper Clause. That's what I'm discussing, here.
Click to expand...

It does indirectly.

And as I said: "the necessary and proper clause only allows the government to enact laws necessary to carry out the enumerated powers."

This has nothing to do with expanding clauses like you are saying it does, but only to make it so the government has the ABILITY to carry out the enumerated powers. How does this even get close to the lie of the living constitution idea?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom