Where do you guys keep the litter box?

Dogs will eat anything !!!

Same as dogs will love anyone !!

You have to earn a cat's love !!!

 

A person deliberately votes for a crooked politician is fooling themselves as to the qualifications of that politician.

 

My Siamese has clearly chosen me as his person & the other 2 are just as affectionate. Most of my computer issues are from cats on the keyboard

You're right about dogs loving most everyone. I've known some exceptions & one I'm not so sure about: i.e. "My Adventures with 'Spot"
Meanwhile, long ago a friend of mine had to quickly leave the country (Federal legal issues) & dropped off his attack trained doberman for me to babysit until he could return. I'd never met the dog (Spot) who was just a little past prime killing age. He was trained to let people into buildings (NY warehouses) but not let them out. No one could touch him but he responded to my verbal commands over time. At first, I had to escape my basement apartment via a ladder to go to class at the local university.
Eventually, I could leave via the door but still no touching.
The first time I took him on an outing was to go swimming where there was a rope swing. He soon learned that it was his perceived duty to swim out & retrieve the rope, hand it off to the next person & continued doing his duty until his gums bled so we stopped. As time went on, I was finally able to pet him until his owner returned & took him to the country where "Spot" retired from guarding NYC warehouses.
"Spot" didn't love me in the normal dog way but I think he loved me as much as he could.

 

Years ago I found a stray kitty that did that with me. She adopted me and jumped in my car and wouldn't leave. I ended up keeping her until she died.

 

I know nothing about dogs.

I bought and read a book about Chihuahua's and was going to get one but the feral kitties adopted me first instead.

Now I am A Cat Person.

A dog will love anybody. Sort of like a co-dependent wife.

But you have to earn a cat's love.

And if the cat does not love you it will leave and find another human.

 

Well there is the Hillary Crowd and there is the Trump Crowd.

We are better off under Trump's leadership (or lack thereof) than Hillary's.

 

A couple of questions:

1. Have you ever in a debate here changed another's point of view?
2. How many times have you had an identical or nearly identical debate?
3. Have you ever changed your point of view as a result of a debate here?

 

Agreed. Hillary had a powerful political machine, one that is now destroyed much to the relief of many Democrats. Trump continually hamstrings himself leaving the ultimate power in the hands of Congress, as it should be.

 

Forgotten the Judiciary, have you?

 

All of our pets are either strays, rescued or adopted. I've never had to buy a dog or cat, they either tend to show up or I'll go to a rescue shelter & send someone else in to pick one. I couldn't look at all those brown eyes without wanting to take them all.
I think that stray/ rescued animals somehow remember and are grateful for being adopted.

 

Not at all. It's part of our governmental tripod. Did you forget who creates legislation?

 

1) Hard to tell.
2) Several times.
3) Yes, at least moved toward a more equitable position.

 

On the contrary, I'm quite aware of the genial willingness of the Judiciary to legislate, and the refusal of Congress to do a damn thing about it. What's your point?

 

The Judicial branch doesn't legislate. Example: Citizens United. They ruled on law. It's up to Congress to pass legislation which passes the Constitutional test, it's up to SCOTUS to rule whether the legislation passes the test or not, it's up the President to sign the legislation or veto it.

 

More accurately, it has no constitutional authority to legislate; but of course it does so anyway, let's face it.

Examples: Wickard v Filburn, Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, NFIB v Sibelius, Obergefell v Hodges.

I don't need education on these things, trust me.

 

And what is your explanation for Roe V. Wade ??

This case is clearly legislation from the bench.

 

They (the newly feral kittens) are not afraid of people yet.

So they come close to us and beg for comforting and food.

When we feed them we make a friend -- even a loved one -- for life.

 

In response I will say that I have read information here on PF which has changed my mind.

However the actual "debating process" (I think you really mean argumentation rather than debate -- a debate has an impartial judge scoring points for 2 opposing sides) have never changed anything for me.

 

When you claim SCOTUS legislates, yes, you do need education.

 

They ruled on law. It's up to Congress to make changes to the law. The key being it has to be Constitutional law. Isn't it odd that no one mentions "District of Columbia v. Heller" when they try to show the Supreme Court legislating from the bench?

In the case of Roe v. Wade, it was ruled the Texas law violated the 14th Amendment.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html
...MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This Texas federal appeal and its Georgia companion, Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, present constitutional challenges to state criminal abortion legislation. The Texas statutes under attack here are typical of those that have been in effect in many States for approximately a century. The Georgia statutes, in contrast, have a modern cast and are a legislative product that, to an extent at least, obviously reflects the influences of recent attitudinal change, of advancing medical knowledge and techniques, and of new thinking about an old issue.

We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.

In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.

Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection. We seek earnestly to do this, and, because we do, we 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905):

• 
  "[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States."
  ....
  

I

 

You have failed to see reality.

You are in complete denial.

The fact is that some SCOTUS Courts legislate shamelessly and when they do there is no recourse from them. The check and balance has failed completely in this case.

 

1. Yes
2. Many times
3. Yes

 

Disagreed, but you are free to believe your conspiracy theories and to cherry-pick facts all you like.

The amusing irony is the fact RWNJs are whining about a RW court just as the LWLs are whining about SCOTUS being stacked as a RW court.

 

Claiming Obamcare premiums were a tax was definitely not judicial.

 

By a RW SCOTUS. Go figure.