All Activity

All presidents have had problems with Iran. Do I have to list every problem? Read your history.

2:03 1st 18-7 Kimball

You're fine. I'm following. But, I have to get to making Mama supper here in a sec, so I'll make this one quick. SCOTUS followed original intent by protecting the minority and affirming equal protections. Brown followed the 14th, and reneged Plessy. Not all originalism interpretations favor what most consider 'conservative' tendencies. If interpreted using originalism without judicial bias, I'd argue the Constitution is actually a very liberal document. It provides and protects rights. It doesn't limit them.

3:34 1st 10-3 Kimball

5:21 1st 4-3 Kimball

Actually,Plessy upheld Jim Crow.

Legislated by the states after Plessy vs. Ferguson.

So you’re saying Brown vs. Board of Education was an encroachment on the 14th amendment? Separate but equal was what was legislated.

I’m going on record before the game starts as saying I’m with you on the Crawford upset. Might be the kiss of death for them, though 😀. I’ve watched a couple of their games and have been super impressed. The speed that they play at has been unmatched by probably any team I’ve seen this year

HE SAID DAY ONE! We’re on day 417, and he hasn’t delivered on 1/10 of what he promised.

Boxscore for this game: [Hidden Content]

HE SAID DAY ONE!!!

I hope I’m wrong, but history suggests otherwise. Afghanistan has outlasted 3 world powers - Great Britain, Soviet Union, United States. Their GDP? $18 Billion. Iran GDP? $356.5 Billion. They ain’t backing down.

SCOTUS is there to serve the Constitution, and the people that fall under it's law. It's not there--as some would believe--for judicial review as you're defining like a power grab. Marbury vs. Madison basically established that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and SCOTUS HAS to follow it. Whether they think they know better or not. Instead of thinking of SCOTUS as being the arbiter of law, think of SCOTUS as HAVING to use the Constitution as originally intended to verify legality of an existing or proposed law. In other words, think of SCOTUS as SERVANTS of the Constitution. They don't exist to create law. The Constitution's basic function is to protect minorities from the majority opinions of the moment. That's the whole reason we have Separation of Powers, State's Rights/Federalism, limited Enumerated Powers, the Bill of Rights, and the 9th and 10th Amendments. If the Constitution is interpreted as a 'living document' as you and most liberals believe, that means--by definition--it would change with the whims of the majority opinion of the day. It wouldn't be performing it's fundamental purpose of protecting the minority. If the Constitution was easy to amend, it wouldn't provide the protections that were intended. The Constitution is purposefully vague in many areas. That's the beauty of it. Our Founder's desired less laws, more freedom, and a minimal Federal government. NOTE: These are my personal opinions. Everyone has the right--and I'd say duty--to try to find fault. That's the only way to understand your freedoms better.

Up next 4A DI Fort Bend Crawford vs. Dallas Kimball at Alamodome, San Antonio 5pm

20 huh?

Not sure about "wanted". He did interview.

Westwood led for 31 1/2 minutes of the game. Paradise led for 30 seconds.

I don’t think those dots can be connected!

Did we have any problems with Iran when Obama was president?

So we’ll be there for many years in other words.

You don’t go into a conflict and then telegraph your strategy. You know better than that!

Is that coach Silsbee wanted at PW?

If he becomes a lame duck at the midterms he doesn’t have much time left. We will revisit this conversation at a later date. He’s doing his best to become a lame duck president at this point.

Do we know what the exit strategy is yet?