We are not free to voice hate by United States Constitution the people assume the powers of liberty not freedom. We are at liberty to voice a grievance of hate by way that can be seen as filed.
A grievance is substantiated, or unsubstantiated and debate shares this connection with grievance. Most all things that have been create at one time had been imagined first so it would be generalizing an opinion to say real and imaginary. A grievance is a strong disagreement with some display of substance of dispute, this substance can act as target to be addressed directly. So if the substance of topic is answered it is no longer a grievance.
A grievance is an expression of self-value which may be contradictive to its appointed cost in the public. A grievance is a declaration of independence and debate is not. A debate makes no claim of self-value a person maybe assigned to one side.
Public fraud is about two things the wording and money. The grievance is Global Warming the conundrum is if there was an ice age there has to be a warming for the ice to have melted. Just to point out a United States that is talk about publicly when most people bring up the topic Global Warming or Climate change they are talking about Human Climate Manipulation.
When a group of people can intentionally add by knowledge things that they know will complicate the focus of research made on a public grievance/complaint they are in fact stalling. Global warming arrived shortly after public storm water runoff evaluations had been made. So who thinks dumping billions of tones of Salt and chemical dicers on frozen water is a Warming process? Who believes it is done on purpose by people?
Okay so if Mexico has found a common defense to the general welfare for Mexico on admission of guilt made on murder why has the principle not been shared with the rest of Mexico? Simply allowing one type of admission of murder for woman to go without judicial separation for public protection isn’t really a united state of basic right.
Everyone should pay for their own admission of guilt to a felony crime if it is found to be true. What is questioned is does Mexico have reason why all woman as a United States must make a felony admission of guilt publicly? There are some ideas of what makes abortion illegal. The crime that is publicly admitted as a lie. Is it the self-incrimination which askes all voters to take part in a felony crime.
Funny there is a lot of talk about Russian commission in voter tampering, yet many nations allowing the voter to admit or take part in a admitted felony crime which is grounds for vote restriction is Okay?
Totally unrelated to the United States of America.
All the Capitalism Karl Marx never addressed. Capitalism by basic principle is independence. Nothing more and it is the human Nature which initiates economic failures by use of philosophy. Marx was educated as civil counsel unbound to a United State Constitutional principle and become stateless due to publications he had written.
Two important facts Marx did not address United State by Constitution and Marx became stateless. Was this a coincidence, doubtful. Also all Capitalism would remember of Marx is he was by principle a capitalist as his belief was that Capital holdings could be owned. His grievance was over only who takes ownership as an understanding to power.
Socialism is the enemy of independence. Marx wanted the independence without the burdens of question.
The dimension of Time written as a Time Dimensional Expansion. (T.D.E.) Rights Reserved.
12:00 PM can become 12:00:00:01 the :01 is the 4th dimension of time and disappears when the 4th dimension of time reaches this point 12:59:59:59PM Time is simplified by mathematics to 1:00 AM
This time 01:00:00:00 AM is identical to this time 01:00 AM in accuracy by principle of time.
Grievance calling BS, by adding a decimal point the ratio 12:00:00.0 AM makes the whole thing less accurate period. Rights Reserved.
Still None sense?
John_C you are writing utter incoherent gibberish which makes no sense and follows no logical chain of thought.
Untrue the train of though is the errors which make General Relativity the corruptor of mathematic principle with the use of Pi and decimal point position. A numerical decimal position .01, 1/100th The ratio of Time 12:00:00 AM should not have a decimal point like this 12:00:00.00 AM it should be written and translated like this 12:00:00:00 AM the logic is to keep the integrity of the ratio of absolute time.
A Generalized Question: 12:00 PM occurs in and on all these places at the same instant. The Earth, the Moon, Mars, Saturn, Our solar system, the Milky Way, and the Universe. They are in a place of boundary called space. For many reasons the Time 12:00 PM though shared as one instant by all these places does not occur in the same space at that one instant.
Is Time a dimension of space? No Time is not a dimension of space it is mathematic. No straw man argument here. An answer is given, and the detail of the answer is explained so it can be found independently confirmed or disproven by debate.
Let me explain:
First: E=Mc^2 is mentioned in the forum as means to Space-Time being an effect of energy warping space. I have grievances related to your interpretation of General relativity but then we are creating a straw man argument. So back on focus. (gravity) = 8pi G x (energy and momentum). = (H=8piG) = ( E=Mc^2)
There is a basic mathematic violation made by ratio when Pi is used in relativity’s formulation to assume quantity of energy, mass, or volume. On one side of linear form or both E (Pi is implanted often by math never removed) = Mc^2 (Pi is implanted by math and often never removed) this is a violation to fixed linear algebra as the equation must detail Pi and exclusion.
The grievance is in the way decimal state is shared with Absolute Time (12:60), (1:60), (1:60) Uncorrupted. Absolute Time (12.00:60.00), (1.00:60.00), (1.00:60.00) corrupted. the decimal point is added to second under the idea it is adding accuracy. It is by grievance changing the ratio uniting to relative with Pi. Einstein loved Pi.
Kinetic energy is KE = 5.5 x mv^2 O
Mass M = F/a (force/acceleration)
Volume
1. Cube = a^3 O
2. Rectangular = abc O
3. Cylinder = Pi r^2 h X
When a decimal point is added to a formulation of Time a center and change of direction are implied. The decimal point is the new start for a linear addition of value to take place going on the opposite direction of the whole number. The whole number is not continued by use of ratio. Still giberish
Excuse me! Strawman argument? First: Yes, I set mathematic evidence on the boards saying that the ratio of absolute time is. >>>> (12:60, 1:60, 1:60) <<<<< The fact of mathematics then states that adding a decimal point is a corruption of that set Absolut when set inside the numbers held in ratio by it. You are literally presenting no mathematic rebuttal. Zero. None. Nada. Pi and the numerical state of decimal numbers like (.1, .24, .4617) are what makesE=Mc^2 look relative to time. The most basic math translation between time and space is round and square.
Clearly you do not grasp the basic mathematics involved here1:10(is the language of a numerical decimal ratio) and 1: 60 is a ratio of absolute time. Either these two are the same ratio, or they are not? This according to physics. It is you who are making the strawman defense because you are giving credit to the planarization of time by fictional physics/ Science fiction. Not mentioned above in the title of the debate.
The grievance is that Space X, Y, and Z is cube, when equal area as condition is set. (X= 10, Y = 10, and Z = 10) While if we write this as X=10, Y = 10 it is now square again not complicated abstract math. Absolute time is Hour, Minute, and Second. Times fourth state is degree also know by science fiction as the 4th dimension. If you like I will formulate it so you can write and explain how Isaac Newton might also explain the addition of multiple dimension of time and how it is then simplified down to one if necessary.
“Just W.T.F.”
Again strawman argument, Not! Is time a dimension of space? no and all of what has been written is explaining why.
You present a strawman defense to the grievance I bring to the debate. All you are saying is not related and you don’t act like you understand the math here.
First it is not all of physics I am in disagreement with, in fact there are laws of motion shown with simple numbers I presented as evidence on times behalf. I’m not asking you to follow my law of gravity, the law tells you why you are following that law of gravity. I am the writer. Gravity is a motion. People are an object that can be moved. Elasticity is energy one, modulation is energy two, and finally reverberation is energy three, when these accumulated energies are set to scale and proportion objects move. The motion is then called gravity. Again not a straw man argument. As the use of Einstein theory places relevance to gravity in topic.
So let there be physics and let there be science fiction. We both know that physics is science fiction when the word theory is place in front, or behind the discussion. We both know it is grievance when the statement has numbers as a direct exchange of principle.
The grievance expressed is based in ratio. (12: 60, 1: 60, 1: 60) then adding that Pi as an irrational state is abused by its relativity to the ratio of the decimal system. .1, .2, .3, .4, and .5 these numbers express a change in direction of motion to scale as well. They count upward form one while at the same time counting upward from .1 in the opposite direction. This means a premature numerical center is created. The arc of the scale is not equal to the curve of the whole.
So a square and a sphere are in general mathematically relative? Please share they are what both shapes?
You are arguing mathematic principle with the idea of medication, making accusations of over medication, or lack of proper medication. How original.
What is funny is Einstein and many mathematicians cannot see the independence between a cube and a ball, area and velocity, and the person who can is the one overmedicated. By the way Flora it is not a theory it is an observation of mathematical fact. General and Special Relativity are the theory, remember that is why it was titled the Theory of relativity.
What I am expressing is a grievance not theory.
Why Time and space are not relative.
Space is a cube X, Y, and Z.
Time is a sphere. Two or more spheres set by proportion can be used to remove the use of Pi principle and replace it with a ratio. ( 4Pir^2). Pi is the focus of relativity to cube not time.
All that is added mathematically by physics with space-time and the theory of general and special relativity is dimension of space changes from where you stand inside of the area. That’s it. To some up why Einstein is wrong about the relativity of time. Time is the circle to square cubit of space. Why time works in the square is 4 -90 degree angles can from a square 360:180 and 270:90 are right angle triangles held by a radius of circle. Form two circle we get square.
Why the plagiarism dictates that time must be bend to space is a square bends space to try and mimic how the circle creates the arc of every circle. Using algebra and fix equation at some point of scale the arc reverts to straight line. Many people may disagree as to why this is, but I relate it to motion and a need for an additional Pi described as yPi.
All that is added mathematically by physics with space-time and the theory of general and special relativity is dimension of space changes from where you stand inside of the area. That’s it. To some up why Einstein is wrong about the relativity of time. Time is the circle to square cubit of space. Why time works in the square is 4 -90 degree angles can from a square 360:180 and 270:90 are right angle triangles held by a radius of circle. Form two circle we get square.
Okay looking past the humor of short sightedness of mathematics. As a person who truly hates math I understand your choice of wording. Let’s ask a question that will piss them off. It is 12:00 o’clock on earth, there are currently 37 local times in use on earth. Wat time is it on Mars.
My restarted answer to the question is if it is 12:00 o’clock on Earth, it is 12:00 o’clock on Mars. So this is what we are not saying when we ask for an exact time on Mars, it is 12:00 o’clock noon where? The answer is we must be on mars to find out all we know for sure is it is only 12:00 o’clock one place on mars and one place on earth. This will take place at the same instant.
I question myself every day when translating mathematic time, I must go to work but will answer the question later. Your question of my translation is not taken personal.
The loss of mathematic principle to explain plagiarism. Absolute time 21:60, 1:60, 1:60 the corruption of the principle reads as follows (21.0:60.0, 1.0:60.0, and 1.0:60.0).The principle is that a cube is more accurate to define space then a sphere. When the final shape is unknown does it matter?
The saying can’t fit a square peg in a round hole describes Time. Space is the square = X, Y, and Z. Time is the round circle = 360 degrees.
The problem is space-time is a plagiarism of absolute time. 12:60, 1:60, 1:60 = Absolute Time
By the way I have to write this question so I can understand were your idea of time is mathematically, plus or minus 10 nanoseconds compared to what? An absolute time you and I both admit is not mathematically absolute anymore, and you don’t know why until the mention of different forms of ratio?
My grievance is not demonstrated false you are saying Sat nav is the system holding inconsistency’s with the use of atomic time. To point out an observation Einstein never translated a way to calculate absolute time so it may be taken with an object that is traveling faster than the speed of light.
While by observation it appears atomic time has a problem with just the speed of sound. I’m I correct?
The ability to increase and decrease mathematic focus is not relativity.
I can agree easily Time is not absolute. But! The grievance is it was absolute, then made relative by human error.
A dimension of time is nothing more than a detail of time. The accuracy of time can be increased and decreased like focus on a camera to understand an image of area.
Time is a mathematical absolute that was formulated, then written, it has a self-value. It is not a premise relating to theory, time is a mathematic ratio of (12:60, 1:60, 1:60) what it looks like t the eye is that motion cannot be measured without the use of the mathematic ratio set to as a single velocity that translate from energy by use of inertial force to scale. This is complicated to explain directly but might be better said as all motion on a clock is made at the identical speed it is just in different scale. This makes the observation wrong as you see the second faster than the hour.
The fact is space and energy can expand without time it will simply go unrecorded by accurate means. Space-time is plagiarism of the mathematic ratio as if it had no self-value. There is a ways to calculate mathematically dimensions of time. They simply are not anywhere near what they are proposed to be by science fiction.
DID relativity PROVE time not to be absolute?
Is it now called the Law of Relativity?
Special relativity is simple accepting that General Relativity was incorrect.
My grievance is that time has been corrupted at the dimension of second, by associating a ratio which is not proportioned into the original ratio. This forces the absolute mathematic to be relative by numeric corruption. As Special Relativity and Time now share the same numerical irrational state when they did not always.
It could be true, I may be an idiot. So I will need an answer from a superior mind like your own. Do numbers normally have two decimal points? Is Special Relativity is a calculus equation which implicates relationships between ration? If so does it required that absolute time be corrupted to give an appearance of its relationship?
It would be rude at this point, even maybe unfair not to try and describe what would happen to a dimension of time past three, and why. Time is a mathematical absolute because it is created in relationship to the principle of square which is related to degrees of a circle...
There are only 360 degrees in a circle, and the degrees are broken down also by hours, minutes, and seconds. Thus three demission’s of time. 1. Hours. 2. Minutes. 3. Seconds. The Forth demission of time is simply just simplified like many other mathematic fractions.( 2/4 = ½)
I respect the idea of all who have posted here and am not trying to issuant anyone.
Though not formally a part of institutional physics I have written a law of gravity which simply states. All gravity is elasticity, modulation, and reverberation. This is an addition to Newton’s laws of motion. As it describes gravity in such a way that is not directly related to the motions of inertia force, and centrically force.
Gravity has no effect on mathematical absolute alone, other than by meaning being used as a description of the ability for humanities corruption to destroy scientific evidence in some way. Example: The gravity of that action had a direct result in the outcome being recorded.
Time is a mathematical absolute to which space is part of by design. Where space is warped, only energy can be warped. There appears to be some concept or principle of mathematical absolute not understood if the hypothesis states space and time are connected in any way.
Almost all parts of the seen universe are space without time as the mathematic absolute has not been interpreted correctly by physics. Creating space is not a reasonable objective for scientific grievance.
Space and energy came before Time. Time is a mathematical absolute to which space is part of by design.
As far as time and dimension is concerned. Time is a mathematical absolute, and as it is formulated as square by ratio, this means when an additional dimension is added to square, the mathematical principle is proportioned to cube which is then capable of reduction to square again. Hence that is why Time is a mathematical absolute.
FYI it was formulated from a circle so all interpretation of mathematic motion is set the same way.
There is no argument for time here, it is only an argument of energy. Time is a mathematic absolute. What mankind has proven is that the math can be performed incorrectly and for the most part people would not understand the mistake.
Freedom is a word used to describe an object. Liberty and independence are words to describe the united state people like to feel but accidently call freedom. The rules of free describe a person conduct as being done without cost or self-value. Which is almost impossible. This is why the word free describes objects, ever notice that the First Amendment does not say freedom of grievance? Grievance is a united state of speech, press, and religion.
My understanding is the reporter writes for the press, and the press publishes for the reader.
Freedom of the press describes a basic principle, The United State is all writing hold no cost or self-value. It is only people who fix price as cost, or self-value on all and any writings. The first Amendment then goes on to describe a boundary set by free speech, free Press, within the distance of filed grievance and peaceful assembly.
Which is said in another words freedom is the loss of both self-value and appointed cost.
Gravity is Modulation, Elasticity, and Reverberation.
The effect of gravity is made on motion. Gravity was described by Isaac Newton as a law of motion. Gravity consumes space as well as the earth. Modulation is countered by reverberation equaling a direction against resistance show as density of an object.
Yes, it has to be murder. But! murder takes place in two ways not one described by religious definition set as words and admission of guilt once made by midwife long ago.
By medical standard a woman is killing a life by simply allowing embryo to go unfertile, while a man is then forced to murder countless lives as he would be chosen by a woman in advance, then used as creator of living substance to fertilize only one embryo to spare her of this fate of death by becoming creator of life in the Human Reproduction System.
No wonder there is a religious story of Adam and Eve the truth is a horrible fact of nature almost every-one is unwilling to face. And it is the year 2018.
Right now the medical and scientific world share one definition when life begins.
Slavery 1857 the reasons a slave did not have any described United States Constitutional right was caused by lack of representation of record on emancipation from united state of prisoner of war. As wording emancipation is simply re-describing publicly free as equal to liberty and it is not by fact that way. The point of the argument in court was made against the United States Constitution for not having a definition of meaning which could ever describe a man, woman , or child as not having self-value or appointed cost, and this definition is still missing today.
Ironically the liberty of the slaves of the South should be attributed to Abraham Lincoln by a Military decree as executive order, in services rendered by foreign prisoners of war setting a larger boundary for civility and independence.
Why is abortion right? Simple it is an admission of guilt to a felony crime made publicly.
Why is abortion wrong? Simple it is an admission of guilt to a felony crime made publicly with a transformable self- incrimination that can be cast on the public
Why else is pregnancy abortion wrong? Its use is out of context set by official understanding. The term abort is a pause/stop made in an official start of an event, by which a life threating, or dangerous malfunction is the motivation of paused/stop to allow a determination to either terminate, or proceed with the official process. The aborted process is allowed to continue till its natural completion.
It is Ironic but the argument of debate for abortion applies to a woman as she only ever pauses death created when she does not have sexual relations, or artificial insemination, not with the stopping a pregnancy that is on going.
they can be trick or willingly admit guilt to a felony crime and loose rights. Since you asked.
Keep in mind posterity is placed in writing within Preamble of the United States Constitution. This means the first order of a United State of woman should be, must be, removed themselves from any Admission of guilt of crime, or accusation of crime before representation before the United States Constitution, so she too can obtain constitutional right as creator, then partner in creation of this described posterity.
This process of description sets a legal fact all woman are created equal according to the law in this way so it might be witness to young and old alike.
Yes a United State can be set showing a right for the unborn to live.
First is Genetic human cloning, then artificial womb children, test tube babies, advanced A.I robots, finally children who are conceived by parents.
Understand something clearly abortion by its admission of guilt in a crime set a poor practice loose in a United State of Constitution. It is hard to make any arguments here without setting a proper use of the word abortion in the context to what it describes.
What we do know as fact it is not the intention of humanity to place a limit on birth by use of womb for all people as a single right, as medical and scientific precedent has already been made to make that impossible while the argument struggles with issues of independence. There is more than one group of people who are united as a single group by this question in Constitutional principle.
I am not prepared to make arguments on this level of principle in a basic fashion and from the looks of the comments so far there is a great deal of representation missing.
Not really, America as a democracy has influence elections internationally for quite some time politically. This means many enemies have been nurtured to a way of questionable ethics. To think maybe some-one should have understood we are a United State of Constitutional right a promoted a united union on Constitutional state comes to mind.
As socialism works with communism yet is the enemy of independence, and United State is a regulation set against socialism which limits dictatorship of communism. This is how a democratic republic Military command can be relieved of duty making it unique in the world.
Yes, I am saying an admission to a crime is legal even if the woman believes she is in danger, or is really in danger. There are several Unite states created by the use of the word abortion. Outside the biggest which is an admission of guilt, there is the transferable self-incrimination, and outside the transferable self-incrimination there is a miss-use of the word abortion.
Abortion is an official stop/pause used only on things to have been officially started to address issues concerning life threating malfunctions. The process which is aborted is either restarted, or terminated for safety. Abortion on the other hand takes place with a really woman when she does not become pregnant while she goes through menstruation up until menopause.
The medical profession and genetic sciences see the human embryo as alive and its life is simply extended in a couple ways, cryogenic freezing, and pregnancy are different ways of preserving a living thing that has already been documented. So it is the stopping of the conception process which is when an abortion takes place according to the principle of the word. The other circumstance is termination or female specific amputation.
The reason why legislation of law around the word abortion is illegal. Self-incrimination is never addressed to a standard of United States Constitution the crime is never verbally removed from the admission of guilt. The demonstration set to protect the United States Constitution is female specific amputation. This admission has no self-incrimination of guilt. this places all voters in danger of committing perjury or become accomplish after the fact. both of which would remove them as legal voters.
Abortion is legal
Asking permission or forgiveness for pregnancy termination by the public is not.
Abortions are public legal admissions of guilt. Maybe people should understand that before they argue the crime confessed and its alibi given, so then they might clearly see why they can be found to be illegal. A Professional-choice is not a United States constitutional choice, one is made over Constitutional right, and the other over money.
Is the United States Constitutional judicial separation process willing to give up legally fornicating woman? Should Female Specific Amputation be legal?
Gay Marriage hurts everyone in three ways.
First: Marriage is a longstanding likely-hood with legal past which is a precedent for the creation of citizens by the natural process of birth without immigration. It is licensed process which allows a common defense of governing State and governing Nation to address the creation of new Citizen as baby entering into a Country from an origin outside of borders only represented by two people.
Second: Gay marriage hurts the public as it is plagiarizing a likely-hood of marriage and civil union that is a witness account describing a sexual innuendo as conduct which is not needed in part of the overall witness’s account of such type private contract. As these issues of public likelihood require a common defense to the general welfare Binivir and UnosMulier are not are not sexual explicit witness accounts for children under age.
Third: The constitutional separation made by the likely-hood’s license set a legal distance and boundary between medical use of donations in the form human embryo, and sperm. As the licensing of medical practice is now able to create a citizen like couples, at the expense of love and the preservation of life which set forth a living being by registration.
Okay you’re kind of not grasping a basic principle here. The United States Constitution is not Constitution itself. They are two different things. Constitution is having been designed from basic principle and legal precedent. A United States Constitution is many idea designed of basic principle and legal precedent.
Therefore the United States Constitution is not out of date there is just reason to believe that the issue of basic principles has been compromised and it no longer can insure a legal impartiality. Which means some laws can be written and ratified to address unconstitutional condition.
Heaven has a Gate charge set that anyone can pay.
Hell has an immigration policy.
GOD is an axiom which describes independence to gain eternal membership to either.
Does it matter Roe Vs Wade is a Civil case based on patient privacy, yet the medical profession is openly asked to violated the Hippocratic Oath by insistence for immunity to a public admissions of guilt. However intellectual well worded it is made. The public just doesn’t deserve to be caught in the intellectual lie abortion creates as a self-incrimination by admission to crime. A common defense is abortion is a lie and what was taking place was a form of female specific amputation.
As for same sex marriage. It is at best a plagiarism against marriage the problem is the governing should have better regulated the likely-hood from the start. Gay and Lesbian are not just a person’s choice they had been an accusation. At the same time marriage is a likely-hood which sets a registration along with civil union and common law marriage to citizen ship as a common defense to the general welfare.
The civil action creates a question to perjury and obstruction of justice by manipulating a witness account.
No open borders are not a great way to spread disease, outbreaks, and plague. As all states of the union have open borders. The lack of medical past or medical history, medical records and open borders are. The risk is always present to a degree but it is the human’s factor that can be set to a choice to expose others to risk.
Capital Punishment at best is only cruel punishment. It cannot qualify at all as unusual punishment every one who lives will also in fact die. Most accidental deaths, or death from illness are dealt to us by fate as punishment for behavior. Why many standards of cruel are based on the conditions set by a persons conduct. What is cruel to one persons standard of actions may not be cruel to another's.
By Constitutional principle we are taking about Capital Punishment.
Again the lack of United State Constitution.
The issue of immigration is not crossing the border as a law restricts this action. It is the attempted murder which may take place as a result of the undocumented crossing. Residency in home states comes with inoculations which prevent and limit any possible outbreaks of illness. Where an agency may wish to only enforce the minor of several crimes there is more than one crime which can be used in judicial separation.
United States Constitutional equality is found under legal precedent as well as basic principle. Where basic principle may say allowing people liberty to seek refuge across borders for many reasons it is the legal precedent set by states and inoculations and medical care which add limits by law.
It looks like people are saying all woman who seek medical treatment to end pregnancy are in fact having an abortions. This is simply not true it is not a basic principle of state which can be used as explanation of United State for all woman who have a loss of pregnancy. It should be understood that the medical profession already held a point in which life began. One not limited to just pregnancy.
It is not SCOTUS that makes abortion illegal it is the admission and self-incrimination which describe the Female specific amputation as illegal. By the way it is this same admission which changes the woman’s United States Constitutional rights as we know it. This is by the intellectual way a woman is saying it is she who is officially ending the life that is continuing to develop as independent.
Roe vs Wade had a constitutional limit as it does not address the legal argument of an admission of guilt that is made by a woman’s choice of words. Again a grievance is that many woman do not have any constitutional right considered with pregnancy abortion. While the burden of this loss of right is not explained to be lost by the admission to a crime with simply no additional Miranda right.
Yes addiction is always someone’s choice. However those who are addicted do not always make the choice of addiction drug. There are groups of people who are seriously, or terminally ill, of these groups some are fortunate enough to have illness symptoms that can be chemically treated in the first place. The addiction in theses type cases is a constant battle for dwindling quality of life.
No it is a sportings event and can be viewed by the public as poor sportsmanship. So this process is open to penalty by precedent assigned by conduct of the game itself.
We do not have a right to say hateful things that can hurt by United States Constitution. We can describe an event in a way which may appear to be wrong with liberty. The United States Constitution just describes the controllable condition that must be met, so this painful truth can occur. We the people are often the bearer of bad new, we the people are not always the creator of bad news.
No, freedom of speech means the object which may be spoken words cannot have self-value or cost. The idea you express is taking the first Amendment out of its context of amending. It is changing the way in which the United States Constitution describes words used as a common defense to the general welfare before judicial separation of record.
A First Amendment is not a new preamble of fact. It is an addition of new facts added and can be argued as self-evident.
The legal argument is not as simple as ownership. As the burden of blame is placed on the United States Constitution. It is over the complex act of perjury that is created over the official recording of the plagiarism which takes place with the use of the word marriage.
It is, it was, a long standing likely-hood and has self-value which disqualifies it from the freedom of speech.
The United States Constitution does not expect any person to not be religious in every way. Constitutional law expects that a religious person can hold themselves impartial, if only for the moments required to hold trial. Both are conspiring against independence.
Is pregnancy abortion an admission of guilt, or not?
Is Female Specific Amputation and admission of guilt, or not?
Is pregnancy abortion an admission of guilt, or not?
It is only an admission of guilt that would support any presumption of guilt to murder. The official end of life is a vast topic, and does not answer the question raised. Please stick to the question.
A point to be made is all sided fail the United States Constitution. Were the legality of the admission being made public has its own weight to maintain order. The debate is over Pregnancy abortion as the admission of guilt, is pregnancy abortion an admission of guilt, or not? I do not know if that question can be asked any clearer. It has an alibi to the admission? Does this admission need to be used to describe medical emergency procedures even though it openly violates the Hippocratic Oath?
Neither person has true compassion. Supporting of Pregnancy abortion has an identification issue that needs to be made clear as admission to guilt. This identification is important for only then can people start explaining why all woman must make this self-incriminating confession. The choice of one woman to make this admission is not the same as all woman must make this admission.
I agree she does not. However it is the rapist who has killed the baby not the woman who has been sexual assaulted. A woman has a natural right by United State to maintain the path taken by her menstrual gestation. The proven inability of a woman to preserve, defended, and protect the United States Constitution. Does not mean those who stand righteous in this constitutional endeavor will abandon her. A knight with no King or Queen still serves honor.
Again I see no point to any admission when ones was not meant by honor.
Okay, if the embryo is alive before it is a zygote then unless something has changed dramatically it is still alive as a zygote. Anything else I can help you with YeshuaBought?
Well not to be rude excon and make a direct comment I was disputing what FromWithin had written. The idea of basic principle tells us that the argument of female specific amputation begins at embryo destruction naturally during a woman’s mensuration. As an embryo is alive as it is science which had developed preservation techniques through cryogenics.
The point here is the embryo dies if the woman does not have sexual copulation, intercourse. Of course unless the (living) embryo is frozen, and this natural process may only be lengthen.
A male sperm is produced in qualities which by nature set murder as a common united states, an event of copulation in any possible scenario. Upon copulation a large number of sperm simple die by the lack of ability to find the embryo of a woman. Yet any one woman could never provide suitable embryos for all viable sperm that are transferred to her by a male during copulation, or sex intercourse if you do not understand the word copulation.
The point here is the (living) sperm die if the man has intercourse. The sperm given the same extension by cryogenics on Time of death as a woman’s embryo.
Science has already made its own distinction of when life starts, and it is this scientific fact that helps make any admission to assuming the burden of officially ending life semi-pointless. Or simply alarming as the wording Pregnancy abortion violates the Hippocratic oath.
To be perfectly clear excon. If you are really an excon can you see any reason why every woman, or simply said all woman must make an admission to a crime? Pregnancy abortion is an admission to a crime, it is not the accusation it pretends to be. Why else have an alibi?
Comprendre? Verstehe? Capri? Entender? Ho’omaopopo? Sabe? Understand?
The United States Constitutional argument rebuttal states. Prove a pregnancy abortion it is not a person’s admission to a crime. There is an international game of obstruction of justice being played using an admission of guilt publicly.
The ability to brag has clouded common sense of many people. Pregnancy abortion is and admission to officially ending life. The legality of any admissions to a crime has consequence outside the type admission itself. The nature states that the embryo dies every month during a woman’s natural process of menstruation is not GOD, but close enough to make a constitutional argument of precedent.
There are a great deal of woman who may have actual not understood the United States Constitution. By this laps in ability made an error in judgement and called a Female Specific Amputation a Pregnancy Abortion.
Pro-life or prochoice does not matter. Both of the responses would need to now answer the question is pregnancy abortion an admission to crime? This is a yes or no answer an alibi for the admission is not necessary at this point of separation?
Is Pregnancy Abortion an admission to a crime? Yes or no?
If it is not an admission must it have an alibi?
If it is an admission to a crime under certain conditions it can become illegal as perjury, not the criminal act that is admitted too.
Also if Pregnancy abortion is found to be an admission to a crime justified with alibi or not, why must all woman make this admission to crime?
An extreme examples: A woman tells us she has had a dreadful experience. A female specific amputation due to medical events, and natural conditions which have left her devastate emotionally. This is completely different then a woman telling us she is officially taking control of her life by assuming the burden of a control over a brand new life.
If the public is expected to presume innocents before guilt there cannot be an admission made publicly before them openly. We argue the lie with pregnancy abortion. The word Abort means to officially stop and the alibi is saying nothing has officially started. So in order for an abortion to be a truth on any official document the start must be confirmed in advance?
What we agree on is this processes of confirmation does not need to happen when constitutional separation is applied to remove the admission form the general public.
Using a United State constitutional separation. These arguments are not free speech issue inside the First Amendment. They are both about filing grievance and the abilities of public assembly.
Free speech is a First Amendment issue and is right as described as self-evident truth, set in writing by the Republic of the United States of America. The football play is in fact not practicing free-speech, presuming this is about the player who took a knee during the pledge he is filing grievance using the media attention he receives from working for the NFL. All this while refusing any allegiance to the very republic which is holding the United States constitutional principle that has been amendment to include the first Amendment as one of its many flags.
The pledge does not mention the Republics Constitution by name. Only that the United States of America as a representation of the flag. It then goes on to include the republic that has used the United States Constitution to create the many United States by truth that can be held as self-evident.
It is not clear the baker understands constitutional right form constitutional wrong. So the baker may rely on moral precedent.
As we look at complicated public relationships and likely-hood by private contracts, and legal precedent. The legal state that is united between couples and political governing is citizens of a country. As this creation is limited in nature to men and woman acting as a united couple there is a legal burden transferred to the public that is shared by political policy. Free means the principle of state in debate must have no cost, and must also have no self-value. Marriage has a self-value that is not enforced by the baker.
Even if a jury were to rule that Free speech is expressed by a couple of equal gender while it plagiarized the likely-hood of marriage. The lack of any self-value does not create immunity to the complex laws of perjury that are being broken. As the complex perjury is associated to the way in which witnesses are directed, as the baker in fact is included as witness and no legal separation process is conducted by the act if commerce. There are some self-evident truths that can be described as inalienable.
Paying to bribe a witness, is in basic principle paying to bribe a witness. A consummation of an equal gender relationship does not need to take place before witness, ever. The source of addition citizens of a country will come from other licensed sources of that country on all accounts.
Hope this helps I tried to explain it as simply as possible.
Can anyone here prove how Pregnancy abortion is not an admission to murder?
Can anyone tell me how all woman must admit to murder for any reason is right?
The question raised with Pregnancy abortion is about truth or lie. Is pregnancy abortion a lie? Why this question is important is Pregnancy abortion is self-incriminating. It is always admitting a crime publicly that may not exist. First you must be able to say, Pregnancy Abortion is not an admission of guilt to any crime it describes, in any way. Do not confuse this idea with the basic principle innocence’s of the crime admitted, is the use of the word abortion in relationship to pregnancy admitting a crime publicly?
My answer is yes it is admitting a crime. Why my answer is yes, abortion is stating a person is officially ending something that has been documented as officially starting. Human life. This makes abortion an assumption of control, on basic principle a woman never has complete control of her own pregnancy. As a united states they are asking for something beyond the law of nature without question.
Do all woman need to admit to the crime of officially stopping life? Again as a united State the words Female Specific Amputation say no. All woman do not need to admit publicly to the act of officially ending life.
Does this mean abortions cannot be proven? No it does not. A Female Specific Amputation can be proven when addressed in the proper way to be a pregnancy abortion. It also can be proven only when properly questioned not to be pregnancy abortion. This is a united states which is impartial.
Woman have already proven to the public and other woman they are willing to murder children of their own posterity. A lie on official documents is not the same crime as the willingness to end officially life. They should not be treated as such as this again is a test to United States Constitution. Why the United States Constitution has been sacrificed as the blame of injustice in this matter is. All life which is brought to an intentional end was expected to go before a judicial constitutional separation to insure that all people in the public could not be trapped as accessories to murder. As this crime negates the right of Vote upon conviction.
So again the most important question is. Do the words Pregnancy abortion create an admission to a crime? If no why not? It is not due to the question of when life starts, abortion describes a start is understood so the word is not telling the facts that are being described. This is a type of lie.
As for the augment of rape. It may be advisable by law a woman should not take responsibility of the official end of life in this matter. As the basic principle of wrong may be left open to argue it is the person convicted of sexual assault who should take this responsibility. Again the Constitutional argument is based on the embryo a woman holds dies by law of nature every month. So it is reasonable within her powers to insure the law of nature is seen through, or not. This United States Constitutional debate should not be hindered by the improper use of admission to crime.
Okay just to get s few things out of the way. What makes Pregnancy abortion illegal is the lie it is saying on an official document as perjury, and the self-incrimination to crime it shares to the public without judicial separation. The fact that both of these crimes are much harder to prove than the admission that is made by the admission which is set as a lie from the very start.
Two things not all woman officially have control at all times regarding pregnancy in any united states. The state pregnancy creates sits in a line with the medical profession and the Hippocratic Oath. By obligation to the republic and the United States Constitution. If it is believed that the mismanagement of representation directs issue of national security. These things are lies which are in effect the reason or cause for perjury, or perjuries on a grand scale. To put it simply the murder is at no point ever a single event that all woman and doctors face.
The question you need to be asking is. Why must all woman make a admission to murder? EVER?
no offence themadgadfly
The republican man is not telling you what to do with your virgina. He is informing you what you are doing with your mouth. You are openly admitting to a crime in pubic this is clearly done with your mouth and brain not your virgina. What the republican man is wondering is why all woman must be forced to make an admission to a crime by law.
The Republic united states of Female Specific Amputation is the republican man telling all woman they do not in fact have to make the admission you are demanding from all of us.
Then don’t let the republic. Go to jail. Officially stop admitting to the crime. Take a chance at trial. That’s the prochoice and prolife option. It clearly was not the republics choice as the united states republic serves the United States Constitution.
I agree but reserve my right to dispute on Constitutional grounds.
First I will start by saying the right to own a fire-arm comes directly from the United States Constitution as granted by introduction of fact in the preamble. Fire-arms are a common defense to the general welfare. The Second amendment though ratified by states, none of those states has ever set any fact to argue that one piont.
Second we are not simply securing a freedom we are mandated by constitution to set forth liberty along a path of happiness. Freedom describes both a lack of self-value and cost and is applied only to word as state, this which are a line of meaning by argument made between two points.
Third taking away a fire-arm is not against the United States Constitution. To be clear it is a threat made to take away personal property without just, or fair compensation that is at question, and illegal by law. As it is being described as a punishment to provide safety, while in fact it was the lack of common defense which was proven to be the cause of death to those who file grievance against United States Constitution.
We will look closely at history. China moved to outlaw martial arts. It failed.
Japan moved to outlaw swards. It failed.
United States moved to outlaw fire=arms. It failed.
The common basic principle here is that each of these things is a cultures common defense. While law may be describe as a common defense to the general welfare. The complexity of some crimes over others to prove inside an impartial court of law, may falsely drive the public into legislation of laws that are criminal for taxation is collect with the hopes of spending in other areas and not complex and hard to establish cases of judicial separation.
You send the wrong message.
Capital Punishment is a Constitutional Right. Politically when a person describes the state action as Death Penalty they are making a statement of political Liberty as promotion to the attempt to represent justice. It is understandable that a person may move away from any obligations to Constitutional guidance to general welfare as we are opening the topic to a conviction which changes the state of judicial separation.
The point is that a Death Penalty is something the criminal imposes on a victim of the crime murder. The witness account to a Capital Punishment though in general observation appears equal to the criminal’s death penalty. It in no uncertain terms equal by the liberty held by Constitutional Separation.
So in saying no I do not agree with a Death Penalty I am still agreeing with the action of state to apply Capital Punishment. What is being refused is my verbal incrimination of states which hold this type separation in their judicial order.
The problem is the question does not address the issue of crime. The debate claims that Pregnancy abortion is murder when in fact pregnancy abortion is only the confession, admission, or acknowledgement that officially ending life is murder. This is why the alibi of when life begins is used as response to the acknowledgment.
So when you say or ask should admission to murder be legal, the response is yes it should be legal. Issue this term Abortion when used with pregnancy is not America nor was it part of the United States of America it came from outside the nation.
How Pregnancy abortion is addressed as the confession, admission, or Acknowledgment is by fact what is at the core of debate. First due to the fact it is a transferable self-incrimination to a felony crime being admitted, this is saying the criminal is convicting themselves without trial and is providing an alibi to evade punishment by basic principle.
So the second major issue is the self-incrimination is saying all woman must admit to the same crime. Yet clearly we know not all woman are in fact guilty of the crime. It is this hidden action of crime which creates the greatest damage as it is promoting a hidden fraud inside contradiction in medical treatment.
The crime of fraud is a much more difficult state to explain in an understandable way to people, so often goes unregulated by judicial separation by cost facture if impartiality is shifted by tax spending. The General principle set by the United States Declaration of Independence.
Example:
Binivir, UnosMulier are equivalence to common law marriage as they may be declared privately as a witness account on couples who are not necessarily sexual involved, but share a state of wealth built by living together publicly. A lawyer is not needed in this witness account as it shares a legal united states with the public and is not misinterpreted easily as fraud.
Marriage is not only a religious institution.
The legal Precedent which places Marriage under state licensing status is a man and woman can create a citizen of a country without help for any outside force. This includes donors, surrogate parent, and Medical implantation which already have licensing status in association to them. This one process of consensual or common law marriage takes place as it is create by understanding of procreation. Marriage is a witness state created to explain the understanding of Nation in a way which does not expose a child, or minor to bear- public witness in a means which may be deemed inappropriate. As group of people are described as together united by principle outside of the fact they are creating a child which is a new citizen of the Nation the parents belong.
No it is not already legal a proclamation has been placed in law and that law can be tested every day it remains in writing. The crime to be charged does not have to be limited to only the criminal made with the confession used.
1. How does instantly admitting to a felony help any woman? Does she believe she is wrong?
2. You are wrong there is no reason other than if the woman believe she is committing the crime that the confession describes should she openly and publicly admit to that crime. Ever!
3. If there is even a question of her belief held in her mind that she is not guilty, her statement to a public should address that fact. Not openly contradict it.
4. truth of law does not insure it was used legally.
A woman has an inalienable Constitutional right to preserve to gestation period of a human embryo alive in her body. That is why she can be given liberty in the burden of her responsibilities set by nature. She spends her entire fertile life with the loss of life in the hopes of a suitable mate.
What was not understood clearly is if United States Constitution separation can or cannot provide equal protection once a process of admission is started publicly
Just to point out some facts artificial insemination is an act of not having sexual intercourse at all. This process may itself create a need for Gender Specific Amputation or female specific Amputation.
It does deny a Constitutional right of a woman to preside over her own body. She the woman forfeit that right upon the self-incrimination made to the public. Pregnancy abortion is a self-incrimination of murder made in the public. Human rights Watch has not provided one woman with Maranda for their own protection. Can they explain how officially stopping life is not a confession to murder? Can any woman? All we get is alibi.
Is Female Specific Amputation giving the same admission?
The United States has nothing but Constitutional right to end Pregnancy Abortion by an introduction of united State being placed upon all woman. It is one of my greatest sorrows to carry this effort out having seen firsthand the detriment to the United States Constitution and to woman of this fraud.
I am afraid you have this backward a woman had a constitutional obligation to the general welfare of all woman by her natural ability to produce a citizen of a United State.
It only denies the woman the right to incriminate others in an admission to murder. Gender Specific Amputation is not pregnancy abortion.
Pregnancy Abortion is a admission to murder?
1. Any discussion associated to the discussion of Pregnancy abortion contains at least one alibi.
2. The State that is shared between both sides of the debate is always murder.
3. Is officially stopping a life detailing murder in an intellectual way?
4. There are possibly two crimes taking place. One: Fraud, Second: Murder. Only the murder is confessed yet both crimes are shared by self-incrimination with the public and all woman.
When human life begins does not matter and answers would be different if the self-incrimination is removed from the admission meaning no crime is self-described to others. The question is does Pregnancy abortion translate to an admission to a crime? Did the admission need to take place? Can pregnancy abortion be described as Female Specific Amputation by United States Constitution as well as Hippocratic Oath?
There appears to be a limit of how many words must be used to describe an answer to debate. This answer can be addressed in four words and Only one argument. The rest of this introduction was meant to fill the requirements of the debate forum.
A government owns guns................
If I am not to fear you...........why should you fear me?
Your question may not be phrased correctly. Do we need Affirmative action in the Armed Services? The United States Armed services are not the United States Military. It is by Congressional action as the Armed Services abandon, or deserted the defense of the United States Constitution by political deal. The military is a precedent state of Constitutional representation and defense. The easiest way to demonstrate the lack of representation presented by Congress, Presidential, and woman within the Armed Service is by historic account. In order for a woman to have been documented as a Constitutional representative the effort of ability would have needed to have been presented and displayed publicly.
The fabrication of law created to formulate a crime incriminating a written document of law, and those voters who once defended it is not a demonstration of constitutional representation. It is a demonstration of organized crime. A woman who seeks to represent all woman as a repressive to the United States Constitution would have acquired a title suited to that one position prior to the undertaking of relief of Presidency as representation to United States Constitution.
Sadly any pregnancy abortion is described by its confession as illegal inside or outside medical necessity and is itself contradictive to the alibi given. Pregnancy abortion simply holds two major grievance. First it is a self-incriminating confession being ask to be made by all woman regardless of their own alibi. Second Pregnancy abortion is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath given no alibi by woman for this violation of oath ever. This calls it into question its medical use period.
There is a self-apparent misunderstanding of what a Pregnancy abortion really is. To make the understanding perfectly clear pregnancy abortion is the admission to a criminal felony murder. It is then only given a possible alibi. Who in their right mind is against a true felony confession? No-one? However. Who in their right mind is in favor of a felony confession that is not true? Every-one?
Can you tell the difference?
I believe you have been given the educated instruction to help you believe a lie. The lie was told to direct you away from facts about what is being talked about. Pregnancy abortion is illegal as it is presumption of guilt misused publicly by a constitutional violation. The alterative is Female Specific Amputation as it does not require the same criminal admission of a felony crime from all woman.
Without numbers we would know no gain.
Without numbers we would understand no loss to what we know.
To all we know, and why.
To all we know and mourn.
To all we might forget.
To all number, to loss, to those who lord.
Goodbye. You will not be forgotten.
The United Sates purchased California from Spain. It is a State in the Union now and it cannot be given way. It can be found in legal violation of that Union for many reasons.
First a lot would depend on the animal in question.
Fish spawn so no sexual penetration will ever take place so a rape cannot happen. While in the animal world it is the dominate male who wins right to procreate. As a human assuming this roll this would mean a choice can be made on behalf of the segregate of the dominate male, a roll taken on by human. No rape.
In animals that are devoted to mates and pick them out of the wild by choice the answer would be yes it could be rape.
The reason few gun death in regulated area's is people tend to use methods other then fire-arm. These methods are much harder to prove so the murders go unrecorded or questioned a lot longer as crime. While instead if accidental shooting their are high recordings of other type accidental death. Which balance out and are in may cases high the gun violence.
By the way I agree a fire-arming 20 minutes an stretch.
I can see a well skilled person taking at least 5 days from raw materials. A professional three months with a better grade weapon then purchased by most military, or Armed Force. Technically even the most modern fire-arms are on barrowed time. While a well trained mechanic or machinist could recreate many fire-arms with great detail.
Technical guns are a tool to fire a bullet at someone who is firing a bullet at you. Guns can just as easily be seen as a piece of moving art as machinery, or a mathematical practical mechanism to demonstrate physics and calculus. A gun can be used to drive a nail into a piece of wood, though not as fast as the FYI nail gun. The problem is your lack of intelligence has given you the impression everyone can be indiscriminately punished due to the actions of others. Which may be the real reason behind your fear of a common defense to the general welfare.
You do not it has been illegal for anyone to be killed with a sword for over three thousand years now.
How that working out?
No Guns are not designed to kill……
A Gun holds not more danger than a hammer or club……
The bullets are what can be designed to kill…….. And at one time a bullet was the most popular way to obtain meat to eat. Cars and Plastic Trash bags are not designed to kill but are both a greater cause of teen deaths then bullets. T.V’s have been found to cause a high number of untimely deaths as well.
"Guns are technically understood to be designed to kill first, they are in fact designed and sold by power and accuracy. The problem is hunting generally requires that an animal is not alive when it is eaten. Note not all animals kill there food and let it cure before eating.
