[TheRealThing]

Thank you for your brief remarks.
Scalia's Catholicism notwithstanding, State's rights do not supercede basic Constitutional rights. The right to equal protection under the law does not query a person's sexual preference before exercising. Your whole "state's rights" view does not cut the mustard when applied to those seeking equal protection from the law, a principle established, in best form, to protect the weak, the small, the minority from being trampled by the majority. If 62% of Alabamans don't want 13% to vote, the test is not "state's rights."

Kudos to PE Trump for checking House Republicans on the shredding of the Ethics Committee.

The ship, having completed a three week training exercise prior to deployment, is docked. However, your "too broke to sail" garbage, and misleading, propogandist inferences about the Navy? Nonsense.

I just got through pointing out the US is a republic and not a democracy, and as such protects the rights of the minority even in the face of majority will (the single qualifier of a pure Democracy) as in the case of the left's on going call, in light of the past election results, to overrule or abolish the role of the electoral college. And as usual, literally hours after I make an argument you try and reverse it on me as if you're the enlightened one. Try to focus here, marriage is not a right under the US Constitution. Neither is the ongoing human butchery under the guise of women's health. The left's method of redefining their dubious agenda as rights, and to either add to or otherwise redefine unalienable rights in order to legislate in support of the latest social fad, is at best un-American and at worst subversive. But, you've got it all right while possibly the greatest mind to ever grace the bench in the person of SC Justice Antonin Scalia, has this whole deal about gay marriage all wrong. :hilarious: Why don't you just admit you can't quite grasp exactly what Scalia wrote? And FTR, Scalia made absolutely no dissent based on religion whatever. What a low blow.

And again, you have it right while former UN Ambassador and veteran of several administrations John Bolton, currently a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, senior advisor for Freedom Capital Investment Management, a Fox News Channel commentator, and counsel to the Washington, D.C. law firm Kirkland & Ellis. He was a foreign policy adviser to 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, is also involved with a number of politically conservative think tanks and policy institutes, including the Institute of East-West Dynamics, the National Rifle Association, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the Council for National Policy, and finally the Gatestone Institute where he serves as the organization Chairman; But he too in your opinion is obviously wrong when he said no carrier task force was at sea and that this unfortunate lapse in national defense, according to administration officials, was owing to budgetary shortfall. [Wiki] I mean who are guys like this compared to The Urban Sombrero, right?

The argument in defense of my premise was never to track seaman on leave, that was an intellectual rat hole of your device. The point was that no, that's zero, carriers were at sea for the first time since Dec 7, 1941. Reportedly, (and I assume the DOD still reserves the right to deploy carrier task forces as they and the pajama boy presently over our national defense policy see things), but the USS GHW Bush just happened to be up for the next deployment and was the only reason the press brought up said carrier and the unprecedented void of carrier protection.

I favor one of my own analogies in cases like this, you continue to flounder about in the very shadow of darkness cast by the mountain of evidence that disproves all your arguments.