Psaki criticized for suggesting male reporter had no grounds to question Biden's abortion stance

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  217 comments

By:   Just The News

Psaki criticized for suggesting male reporter had no grounds to question Biden's abortion stance
Psaki spoke after high court let stand a recently passed Texas law that limits most abortions past six weeks.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


White House press secretary Jen Psaki is facing criticism for suggesting a male reporter had no grounds on which to ask about President Biden's stance on abortion, following a Supreme Court vote on the matter.

Psaki, on Thursday morning after the high court voted to let stand a recently passed Texas law that limits most abortions past six weeks, said Biden "believes it's up to a woman to make those decisions."

She then said, "I know you've never faced those choices, nor have you ever been pregnant. But for women out there who have faced those choices, this is an incredibly difficult thing," in response to the question on who Biden thinks "should look out for the unborn child."

Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins told Fox News: "By Jen Psaki's arbitrary standard Joe Biden shouldn't be commenting on abortion either as he's never been pregnant."

Live Action's Lila Rose tweeted: "I've been pregnant, @PressSec and it's *still* not my right, or anyone else's, to kill a baby. Being a woman or being pregnant does not give you license to kill. Women deserve better than abortion. The President's position is illogical, unscientific, immoral & 40 years wrong."

Psaki did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment.

The question to her about Biden's stance was from EWTN's Owen Jensen.

Former Planned Parenthood Director Abby Johnson said Psaki's answer was "such a silly response. It was all men who decided to legalize abortion across this country in 1973. They certainly respected a man's decision then.

"The bottom line is that they simply don't respect a man's opinion who is pro life. But men should have a voice in whether or not their child is killed by abortion."


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

What a condescending, dirty, feminist comment.

I thought it got by everyone, but evidently it didn't get by John Solomon!

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

Pretty sure that a woman has the same rights as a man. Her reproduction system is her own.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  cjcold @1.1    2 weeks ago

The question was: who Biden thinks should look out for the unborn child?

The Court forgot to extend rights to them.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
The question was: who Biden thinks should look out for the unborn child?

That's no one's business except for the woman in question.

The Court forgot to extend rights to them.

Why should it? The unborn do not have rights. But feel free to petition and make an argument before the courts for that. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

The nonviolable unborn don't have rights.  Their existence depends on use of the organs of a living, breathing, sentient woman.

Unless you're for forced organ donation?  After all, why should you have more right to the use of your kidneys than I do, if my kidneys should happen to fail?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
That's no one's business except for the woman in question.

She controls two bodies then?


The unborn do not have rights.

We shall see about that.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

She's not forced to give the use of her body to another.  Unless you're for forced organ donation.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    2 weeks ago
She controls two bodies then?

Yes.

We shall see about that.

States have tried and failed to do that.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1.1.7  1stwarrior  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

She was forced if she was raped.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.7    2 weeks ago

She's forced if she has no choice to continue a pregnancy or not, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

Why don't we answer the questions in post 2 ?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.7    2 weeks ago

If she was raped, she didn't "give" the use of her body.  All the more reason to allow her to control her body going forward.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.9    2 weeks ago

Gordy already did.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.11    2 weeks ago

Where?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.12    2 weeks ago

Ah, I misread which post.

Because they are ridiculous on their face.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
The Court forgot to extend rights to them.

So did the Constitution. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.15  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1.14    2 weeks ago

Or to women seeking an abortion

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.16  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.13    2 weeks ago
Because they are ridiculous on their face.

Try to endure it and consider what Nerm was asking.

Oh, I see you left.

This one was easy.

Good night all.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.17  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.16    2 weeks ago

What Nerm was saying was ridiculous on its face.  If you want an answer in the affirmative, you, being male, have no right to question me as a female.

But then Nerm was doing what you're doing, accusing Psaki of saying something she didn't say, and running away with that accusation.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.15    2 weeks ago

Griswold and Roe refute that. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.2  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

What's "dirty" about that Vic ?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @1.2    2 weeks ago

She is saying that as a man, he is disqualified from asking about the rights of the unborn.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.2.2  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    2 weeks ago
he is disqualified from asking about the rights of the unborn.

You're putting words in her mouth.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

I put the quote in bold.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Expert
1.2.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.2.5  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    2 weeks ago
he is disqualified from asking about the rights of the unborn.

She didn't say that. Stick to her quote.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.5    2 weeks ago

Are you going to engage in a semantic argument?  She said "I know you've never faced those choices, nor have you ever been pregnant. But for women out there who have faced those choices, this is an incredibly difficult thing."  

That clearly disqualifies him from asking the question, which she never answered btw.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Expert
1.2.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.5    2 weeks ago

If the male reporter had no grounds to ask it, that is as much as saying that no man does. How can you NOT get that? You know, that pesky headline thing

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
1.2.8  Sunshine  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.5    2 weeks ago

Why bring up his sex then? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.7    2 weeks ago

She gets it. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.10  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.6    2 weeks ago
That clearly disqualifies him from asking the question, which she never answered btw.

She is not wrong in that statement.

he is disqualified from asking about the rights of the unborn.

The mistake he makes is thinking the unborn have rights. Especially over that of the woman's rights. And since the man is not getting pregnant or having t deal with a pregnancy, they get no say in the matter, especially over women who do deal with pregnancy.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.2.11  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.6    2 weeks ago
Are you going to engage in a semantic argument? 

I'm only suggesting you discuss her actual words not your tortured interpretation of them.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.2.12  pat wilson  replied to  Sunshine @1.2.8    2 weeks ago

Did she ?

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
1.2.13  Sunshine  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.12    2 weeks ago

Yes she did.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.12    2 weeks ago

No, she didn't

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.15  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.11    2 weeks ago

I have in post 1

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    2 weeks ago
I put the quote in bold.

Which do NOT include saying anything about him being 'disqualified'. 

But you be you Vic. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.17  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @1.2.8    2 weeks ago
Why bring up his sex then? 

She didn't. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.18  Dulay  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.11    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.19  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.2.16    2 weeks ago
Which do NOT include saying anything about him being 'disqualified'

One would have to be completely retarded not to understand that Psaki is saying if you have never been pregnant and never had to make those choices, you wouldn't know. That disqualifies him.

Do you still want to parse words?

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
1.2.20  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.14    2 weeks ago

Do you honestly believe she would have said those words to a female journalist asking the same question? She was addressing the journalist directly as a male.  

I know you've never faced those choices, nor have you ever been pregnant. But for women out there who have faced those choices, this is an incredibly difficult thing,"

How would she know that about a female journalist? 

good grief,  the ignorance some will stoop to for partisan hackery.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.21  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.19    2 weeks ago
One would have to be completely retarded not to understand that Psaki is saying if you have never been pregnant and never had to make those choices, you wouldn't know.

Nope, she didn't say that either Vic. 

Do you still want to parse words?

The act of parsing words illustrates qualities that FABRICATING words does not. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @1.2.20    2 weeks ago
good grief,  the ignorance some will stoop to for partisan hackery.

Yet you persist. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
1.2.23  Sunshine  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.10    2 weeks ago
The mistake he makes is thinking the unborn have rights

Do you mean the journalist?

The journalist didn’t say that.  That wasn’t the question.

Psaki should have just been honest and said no one.  That is if Biden believes that the unborn should not be protected. Instead she tried to turn it back to the journalist. 
 
I guess Psaki forgot who she takes questions for.

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
1.2.24  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @1.2.22    2 weeks ago

That’s your rebuttal?

The brilliance is dazzling.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.25  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @1.2.24    2 weeks ago

Perfect, isn't it? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.26  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @1.2.23    2 weeks ago
The journalist didn’t say that.

He didn't have to.

Psaki should have just been honest and said no one.  That is if Biden believes that the unborn should not be protected. Instead she tried to turn it back to the journalist. 

Psaki was being honest and answered appropriately. 

I guess Psaki forgot who she takes questions for.

Seems like she doesn't take BS either! Good on her!

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
1.2.27  Sunshine  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.26    2 weeks ago

She didn’t answer the question given.

Seems she is as much of a coward as her boss .

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
1.2.28  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @1.2.25    2 weeks ago

Perfect for you.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.2.30  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @1.2.27    2 weeks ago
She didn’t answer the question given.

No, she gave the best possible answer!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
2  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

So, what are the grounds for a male President to take a stance on abortion?

What are the grounds for a female press secretary blocking a male reporter's questioning of the stance of a male President?  Was Psaki trying to woman-splain the President's stance by throwing shade?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @2    2 weeks ago
What are the grounds for a female press secretary blocking a male reporter's questioning of the stance of a male President? 

He wasn't blocked, he asked two questions. 

BTFW, if Psaki wanted to block that particular male's questions, all she need do is follow the precident set by the Trump press secretary and take away his credentials. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Expert
3  Just Jim NC TttH    2 weeks ago
had no grounds on which to ask about President Biden's stance on abortion

Using that logic, or lack thereof, Biden isn't allowed to have a stance on abortion.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Biden says restrictive Texas abortion law is “almost un-American,” creates “vigilante system”

E-YwNRPWUAE4xiB?format=png&name=small

I wonder who wrote if for him?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.1  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    2 weeks ago
I wonder who wrote if for him?

Who cares? It's correct!

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
5  r.t..b...    2 weeks ago

One day…when we put away our biases, whether gender, religious, or political, we will accept the inherent right of an individual to control her or his own fate.

A right we so valiantly champion but so flippantly dismiss should it conflict with a preconceived and contradictory agenda. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @5    2 weeks ago

Maybe congress can consider everybody's right and everybody's emotions. In the meantime, we are supposed to be a nation of laws and the SCOTUS may not LEGISLATE. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    2 weeks ago
In the meantime, we are supposed to be a nation of laws and the SCOTUS may not LEGISLATE. 

What has the SCOTUS legislated exactly? The SCOTUS reviews legislation.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
What has the SCOTUS legislated exactly?

You know that answer: Roe v Wade

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

How so? What exactly did they legislate? Point out the specific law they legislated in the law books!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.3    2 weeks ago

We've discussed this many times. Roe v Wade is based on a "right of privacy" not found in the Constitution. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.4    2 weeks ago

It's been pointed out to you many times the SCOTUS interprets  the constitution as it applies to laws. Or do you seriously think something must be explicitly stated in the constitution to be valid? Do you think you do not have a right to privacy?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.4    2 weeks ago

So you're cool if somebody hacks into your medical records?

Installs cameras in your bathroom?

After all, you have no right to privacy.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.6    2 weeks ago

Obviously only women  have no right to privacy according to alleged conservatives

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.5    2 weeks ago

In 1973 Justice Blackmun announced without any explanation a "right of privacy" "that was broad enough to encompass a woman's decision on whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." The right seemed to burst out of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, not the Bill of Rights! And that was that! Or so the abortion activists thought. Abortion never involved rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution. In the process the laws of about 46 states suddenly became invalid. Blackmun never bothered with the concept of where life began. Out of that the Pro-Life movement began and we have been fighting over it ever since.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
5.1.9  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.8    2 weeks ago

Abortion always was and always will be a decision between a woman and her physician. Always.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @5.1.9    2 weeks ago
was and always will be

You are not talking about law. You are talking about what you think is morally right. You do know that there is a difference?

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
5.1.11  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.10    2 weeks ago

I'm talking about reality. If a woman's physician advises that a pregnancy is dangerous to her health, guess what ? She will be able to get an abortion. Whether Roe v Wade stands or not. And that's the way it was before Roe v Wade.

This will all eventually be moot as medical abortion available by mail will be how most abortions take place.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.8    2 weeks ago

Wow, your comment makes it obvious that you have NEVER actually READ the Roe v. Wade opinion, nor do you know the judicial history of the right to privacy. 

You could remedy that ignorance by reading Griswold v. Connecticut, which was 8 years before Roe when Blackmun wasn't even on the court AND by reading Roe which includes PAGES of analysis on the history of abortion along with historical and modern attitudes about when life began. 

The right seemed to burst out of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, not the Bill of Rights!

Actually, the 9th Amendment is cited in Roe. 

Abortion never involved rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

You know that the 9th and 14th Amendments are mentioned in the Constitution right Vic? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.8    2 weeks ago
In the process the laws of about 46 states suddenly became invalid. Blackmun never bothered with the concept of where life began.

The abortion issue was never based on the idea of where life begins. Rather, on what rights the woman has regarding her bodily autonomy. The SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution to include one has a right to privacy, using the 9th and 14th Amendments, which deemed and summarily struck down (unconstitutional) laws prohibiting abortion. That's how the judicial process works. It's amazing you continuously fail to understand that. Neither have you specifically stated what the court "legislated." Nor have you answered my questions! Here they are again: Do you seriously think something must be explicitly stated in the constitution to be valid? Do you think you do not have a right to privacy?

You are not talking about law. You are talking about what you think is morally right. You do know that there is a difference?

Morality is subjective and does not and should not have say or basis in establishing law.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.14  Dulay  replied to  pat wilson @5.1.11    2 weeks ago

Women of means will ALWAYS be able to have an abortion. It was that way before Roe, it's that way now and it will be that way no matter what the SCOTUS rules. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
5.1.15  pat wilson  replied to  Dulay @5.1.14    2 weeks ago

Exactly.

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
5.1.16  Sunshine  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.13    2 weeks ago
Do you think you do not have a right to privacy?

We do not exclusively have a right to privacy.

Ever peed in a cup for employment?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.16    2 weeks ago

What does that have to do with abortion?  

Absolutely nothing

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.16    2 weeks ago

Ever been forced to apply for a job that requires it?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.18    2 weeks ago

BINGO!

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
5.1.20  Sunshine  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.18    2 weeks ago

Ever been fired for not complying?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.21  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.16    2 weeks ago
We do not exclusively have a right to privacy.

So I can have access to your records, video you or in your home, ect., without legal repercussion, right?

Ever peed in a cup for employment?

A false analogy.

Ever been fired for not complying?

Are you suggesting an employer cannot establish conditions for employment? Every potential employee is informed of such conditions and can either comply or cancel an employment application.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.22  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.20    2 weeks ago

Doesn't matter.  Nobody forced you to take the job.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.23  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.20    2 weeks ago

Was it stipulated pre-employment? 

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
5.1.24  Sunshine  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.22    2 weeks ago

So right to privacy is conditional and not exclusive.

Besides rape who is forced to get pregnant?

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
5.1.25  Sunshine  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.21    2 weeks ago

You asked the question.

Employers do not have to disclose the possibilities of any future drug testing to new hires or existing employees.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.25    2 weeks ago

You didn't answer it.  Just gave a false analogy

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.25    2 weeks ago

Of course they do, if it's a condition of employment

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.28  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.24    2 weeks ago

You are equating an employer's right to set conditions of employment with a stranger's right to sue somebody for having or aiding an abortion.  In your analogy, it would be ok for a perfect stranger to demand that you pee in a cup.

Do you pee in cups for strangers?

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
5.1.29  Sunshine  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.28    2 weeks ago

I was talking about privacy rights.  I have no idea what weeds you have ended up in. Apparently you don’t understand Privacy laws or individual rights.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.30  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.28    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.31  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.29    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.32  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.25    2 weeks ago
Employers do not have to disclose the possibilities of any future drug testing to new hires or existing employees.

Yes, they do. Employers who require drug screening must disclose the need for a screening at the time of employment (if required) and at random intervals. That is a condition an employee must agree to for employment.

Apparently you don’t understand Privacy laws or individual rights.

Apparently, neither do you!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.33  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.29    2 weeks ago

Yes, I'm talking about privacy rights, too.  So in Texas, complete strangers get to sue somebody they suspect has aided an abortion.  If they think somebody is driving a woman to another state for an abortion, for example, they can bring a lawsuit.  They think a poor woman's parent's helped her pay for an abortion - they can sue those parents.

How does that person know that the woman is having an abortion?  Are they invading her privacy, seeking unauthorized access to her private medical dealings?  To the poor woman's parents' financial records?  If not, what evidence are the presenting for this lawsuit?

That's a completely unrelated person invading the woman's privacy - analogous to you being expected to pee in a cup for a stranger.

I really can't make it much clearer than that.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.34  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.33    2 weeks ago

Maybe a complete stranger will require a woman to pee in a cup for a pregnancy test. Just to make sure she's not going anywhere to obtain an abortion if pregnancy is suspected. What's next? Keep women practically imprisoned at home? Require them to have an escort wherever they go? Sound familiar?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.35  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.34    2 weeks ago
Require them to have an escort wherever they go? Sound familiar?

Terrifyingly.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.36  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.35    2 weeks ago
Terrifyingly.

Welcome to Texas. The Taliban State.

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
5.1.37  Sunshine  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.32    2 weeks ago
Yes, they do. Employers who require drug screening must disclose the need for a screening at the time of employment (if required) and at random intervals. 

no no... not all employers who require drug screening are required to disclose random drug testing.

do some more research.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
5.1.38  Kathleen  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.36    2 weeks ago

I wouldn’t say that if I were you... they could be sneaking over here because of Biden’s leadership qualities.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.39  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.38    2 weeks ago

So, you're cool with a stranger suing, for example, your daughter's boyfriend, if she decided to have an abortion and he drove her to the clinic?  IIRC, you are pro-choice.

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
5.1.40  Sunshine  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.33    2 weeks ago

Medical records are not exclusively private.

Very simple for most to understand. 

 



 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.41  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.40    2 weeks ago

So, your medical records should be open to complete strangers?  Because that's where Texas has arrived, and you seem to be ok with it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.42  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.37    2 weeks ago
no no... not all employers who require drug screening are required to disclose random drug testing.

Employers usually disclose if they will perform random screenings before an applicant is signed on. They would not likely disclose a potential random screening during employment.

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
5.1.43  Sunshine  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.41    2 weeks ago

I don’t think any medical records should be disclosed accept for minors.

Privacy law are ambiguous aren’t they?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.44  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.43    2 weeks ago

Well, tell that to Texas.  They want to make sure you really went out for groceries, and not an abortion.  And they've decided that Mrs. Kravitz next door is the ideal spy to keep tabs on you.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
5.1.45  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.39    2 weeks ago

When did I say that? Looks like you are putting words in my mouth... who said I was cool about that?

I already said in the past what my stand is on abortion. I don’t need to answer to you.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.46  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.45    2 weeks ago

When did you say what?

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
5.1.47  Sunshine  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.42    2 weeks ago
Employers usually disclose if they will perform random screenings before an applicant is signed on. They would not likely disclose a potential random screening during employment.

That isn’t what you said here...

Yes, they do. Employers who require drug screening must disclose the need for a screening at the time of employment (if required) and at random intervals. 
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.48  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.45    2 weeks ago

So here you are, agreeing with Biden, but still feeling the need to insult him (while agreeing with him).

Ok.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
5.1.49  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.48    2 weeks ago

I have always stood by certain issues, Biden or not. It does not matter who the president is. 

So that has nothing to do with it and yes! I am insulting Biden, I can if I want to, and there is not a fucking thing anyone can do about it.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.50  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.49    2 weeks ago
I am insulting Biden, I can if I want to, and there is not a fucking thing anyone can do about it.

Yes, I know.  I never said you couldn't.  It just comes across as a bit petty, when he's upholding your rights.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
5.1.51  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.50    2 weeks ago

Believe me, I have seen a lot on here and petty is nothing. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.52  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.47    2 weeks ago

Then you clearly didn't understand what I said. Especially since the second statement clarified the first.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
5.1.53  dennis smith  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.41    2 weeks ago

Medical records are available to the government via Medicare, Medicaid, etc and those who see them are complete strangers 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.54  sandy-2021492  replied to  dennis smith @5.1.53    2 weeks ago

Not for purposes of prosecution.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.55  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.38    2 weeks ago

The 'Taliban State' of Texas was codified by the EXISTING GOP controlled government. Biden had NOTHING to do with it. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
5.1.56  Sunshine  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.52    2 weeks ago

You didn’t understand yourself.  First you said disclosure is required then you state it maybe disclosed.

You are definitely confused.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.57  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @5.1.56    2 weeks ago

Only in your mind. Regardless, this direction of discussion is veering off topic. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
5.1.58  dennis smith  replied to  Dulay @5.1.55    2 weeks ago

Biden has nothing to do with anything.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
5.1.59  dennis smith  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.54    2 weeks ago

I did NOT say for purposes of prosecution. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.60  sandy-2021492  replied to  dennis smith @5.1.59    2 weeks ago

The only reason they have access is because they pay.

They don't spy on those they insure to see if they get in a car that travels across state lines.

They have a need for access.  They can't go home and talk to their spouses about what's in patient records.  They aren't allowed to sell that information to profit via blackmail.

You know, it occurs to me that this could be a HIPAA nightmare.  I hope it is.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
5.1.61  dennis smith  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.60    one week ago

Because things are not allowed does not mean they are not being done. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.62  sandy-2021492  replied to  dennis smith @5.1.61    one week ago

Then those folks should face HIPAA penalties.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
5.1.63  dennis smith  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.62    one week ago

Absolutely, unfortunately we have a government that is very selective about what they choose to applies penalties to.

IMO, this will not even be on their radar.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Sen. Amy Klobuchar on Roe v. Wade:

"These three Trump-appointed justices plus two conservatives that were already on the court had their own agenda. And that's why it is on Congress to put this into law."

R.c8a01f2052dc2462bd3716381eead7f0?rik=XLYIinDgXotSVw&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

Sorry Amy, you don't have the votes. Maybe you are right - that is where it should have been decided!

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
6.1  dennis smith  replied to  Vic Eldred @6    2 weeks ago

Klobuchar is a whiny bitch

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  dennis smith @6.1    2 weeks ago

Let's just say that she tends to be the opposite of Margaret Thatcher. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

You say that like it's a bad thing. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
7  Hal A. Lujah    2 weeks ago

The right has really turned feigning outrage into an art form.  You drama queens should consider joining your local theatre companies.  Bravo!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

Biden and psaki tell us men can give birth. So she’s also a bigot for assuming the questioner doesn’t want to have a baby,

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.1  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
9  sandy-2021492    2 weeks ago

She answered the question.  Biden supports a woman's right to choose.  The "question" about the unborn wasn't a question, and anybody reasonably intelligent and honest knows that.  It was an argument with a question mark at the end.

It's interesting that some list "feminist" along with "dirty".  Yet more misogyny.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9    2 weeks ago

I waited as long as I could. I have meatloaf just about ready. Catch you later.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
9.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1    2 weeks ago
I waited as long as I could. I have meatloaf just about ready. Catch you later.

Nice admission that you seed such articles and make such comments just to bait.  That's very immature.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9.1.1    2 weeks ago

Not really. Pat invoked one of your sayings and It made me think that you would be arriving later.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
10  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

The reporter asked a legitimate question. It’s a question that has been asked of Catholic politicians, including Joe Biden, for many years.

Furthermore, while a man obviously cannot understand the situation in the way that a woman can - particularly one who is going through it or has gone through it - that doesn’t preclude him from having an opinion on the matter or asking questions. We all do that with every issue.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
10.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @10    2 weeks ago
The reporter asked a legitimate question.

Disagree.  It was an argument.  It puts the nonexistent rights of a fetus above the rights of a grown woman.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
10.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1    2 weeks ago
It was an argument.

Possibly, but that is true of many questions from reporters. I think it’s a legitimate, but hard, question. The Catholic Church has an official position opposing abortion. Biden is a Catholic who supports abortion. That’s a direct conflict. And Psaki isn’t saying Biden’s intent is to uphold the law. She is saying what he “believes.” I mean, maybe he shouldn’t be a Catholic.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
10.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @10.1.1    2 weeks ago

Biden keeps his personal, religiously-motivated opinions regarding abortion to himself, as he recognizes that he has no right to make somebody else live by his religion.

Maybe the Catholic Church should expect only its members to abide by its rules.  Of course, most of the Catholics I know lived together before marriage and use the Pill.  So maybe the Catholic Church should reconcile itself to giving advice based on its interpretation of the Bible, and recognize that it has no authority to mandate that anybody follow it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.2    2 weeks ago
as he recognizes that he has no right to make somebody else live by his religion.

Certainly you don't mean the religion he was born into. Joe is about as Catholic as I am. No, Joe's religion is a political movement and he does intend to have us live under that.

The problem we face today isn't religion, but ideology. The individual is being reinvented, conditioned and programmed into a devoted social activist or revolutionary tied to the cause through the movement of the new left. That's why I have to show up here day after day - to counter all of that.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
10.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.3    2 weeks ago

I don't give a damn what Joe's religion is.  Religion as political pandering is hardly new.  What I care about is that he knows that his religion applies to him, and not to me.  He gets that, so I'm happy.

The rest of your comment is a vaguely fearmongering word salad.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.4    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.4    2 weeks ago
The rest of your comment is a vaguely fearmongering word salad.

I was only pointing out that radical ideology has replaced "religion."

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @10.1.1    2 weeks ago
Biden is a Catholic who supports abortion.

I think it's more accurate to state that Biden supports a woman's right to choose. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.3    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
10.1.9  pat wilson  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.4    2 weeks ago

Melodrama at it's finest.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
10.1.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  pat wilson @10.1.9    2 weeks ago

Yup.  Psaki answers the question in a manner any normally intelligent person would understand, a reporter who disagrees asks a loaded question, she shuts him down, whining and poutrage ensues.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
10.1.11  dennis smith  replied to  Tacos! @10.1.1    2 weeks ago

Just another example of Biden talking out of both sides of his mouth. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
10.1.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  dennis smith @10.1.11    2 weeks ago

I'm pretty sure the Church knows his views, so how is that speaking out of both sides of his mouth?  That implies an intention to deceive, and he has been clear about his views regarding abortion -  he supports a woman's right to choose.  I'm sure his priest knows.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.13  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @10.1.9    2 weeks ago

try watching fox and fiends or fucker carlson with the sound off for classic silent melodrama.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
10.1.14  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.2    2 weeks ago

I would heartily endorse changes in the Catholic Church. Biden could suggest that. So could Nancy Pelosi or any of a number of Catholic politicians who don’t mind advertising their faith when it suits them and ignoring it when it doesn’t.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.15  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.3    2 weeks ago
That's why I have to show up here day after day - to counter all of that.

don't bother. get a hobby, turn off fox.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
10.1.16  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @10.1.14    2 weeks ago

There is no reason for Biden to try to change the Catholic Church.  He needs only to follow the First Amendment, and allow himself to be Catholic, and other people to choose not to be Catholic, or follow its teachings.  And he has done that.  No need to change.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
10.1.17  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.16    2 weeks ago
There is no reason for Biden to try to change the Catholic Church.

If he is a Catholic who thinks church doctrine is harmful and inconsistent with scripture, he has every reason to try to change it.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
10.1.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @10.1.17    2 weeks ago

That's between him and the church.

That's the thing about churches - they tend to be top-down sorts of organizations.  The members' voices only count for so much.  Some Tudor kings (and a queen) found that out.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
10.1.19  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.18    2 weeks ago
they tend to be top-down sorts of organizations

Not as much as you might think.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
10.1.20  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @10.1.19    2 weeks ago

Oh, some churches have democratic tendencies.  The Catholic Church isn't one of them, IMO.  Most Catholics just act as they choose (like using contraception), whether the Church allows it or not, and the Church shows little sign of budging on that issue.  Same with celibacy for clergy and abortion.  They're here for the foreseeable future, despite being pretty unpopular, even among Catholics.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.21  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.10    2 weeks ago
Psaki answers the question in a manner any normally intelligent person would understand, a reporter who disagrees asks a loaded question, she shuts him down, whining and poutrage ensues.

She gets away with anything (just like when she blew off questions about the leaked phone call whith Ghani and open borders and the disasterous withdrawl) via the same degenerates who were so openly hostile to McEnay.

Here is what intelligent people are saying:

"Fr. Frank Pavone, a Catholic Preist, wrote: 'Jen Psaki is still using the tired old excuse for #abortion that men cannot get pregnant. Since when does that take away a man's responsibility to defend a child from violence?'

Ed Condon, the editor of Substack page The Pillar, similarly wrote: 'The fundamental premise of Jen Psaki's comments is that fathers have no intrinsic stake in the life of their children. It's also the fundamental premise of a society which views children as transferable commodities.' 

'I was told men can get pregnant and that they can chest feed,' pundit Katie Pavlich wrote beneath a clip of Psaki snapping at the male reporter.   

Meanwhile, Newsmax contributor Jessie Jane Duff chimed: 'Jen Psaki and her ilk actually voiced their outrage that they can't kill another human being after its heart starts to beat. They are soulless ghouls. "Her choice to stop another human beings heartbeat" isn't quite as catchy as "My body my choice". And they know it.'

Pro-life advocate Lila Rose wrote: 'I've been pregnant, and it's *still* not my right, or anyone else's, to kill a baby. Being a woman or being pregnant does not give you license to kill. Women deserve better than abortion. The President's position is illogical, unscientific, immoral & 40 years wrong.'  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.22  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @10.1.15    2 weeks ago

I'd miss you guys too much.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.1.23  Dulay  replied to  dennis smith @10.1.11    2 weeks ago

Gee dennis, it seems that you support the idea of an elected official basing their actions on the dogma of their religion rather than representing all of their constiuents, no matter their religion. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.1.24  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.21    2 weeks ago
Here is what intelligent people are saying:

You have a low bar for deeming someon intelligent if those quoted are your example. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.25  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @10.1.24    2 weeks ago

You only need a modicum of intelligence to know or at least admit that Jen Psaki was disqualifying a valid question simply because it came from a man.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.1.26  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.25    2 weeks ago

Some base their opinion on the actual words spoken, others have a need to filter those words through a bias lense and misinterpret their meaning in a sad attempt to discredit the speaker to bolster their own ideology. 

You only need a modicum of intelligence to know which one of those practices is ethical. 

 
 
 
zuksam
Sophomore Silent
10.1.27  zuksam  replied to  Tacos! @10.1.17    2 weeks ago
If he is a Catholic who thinks church doctrine is harmful and inconsistent with scripture, he has every reason to try to change it.

That would be true if Biden wasn't an Elected Official. As a Representative of the Government he wields the power of the Government, it's implied even if it's unintentional. Let's face it aside from Biden's political career and standing he's a nothing, he might as well have pumped gas for the last fifty years so any influence he would have is purely from a projection of political power (aka Government power).

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.28  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @10.1.26    2 weeks ago
Some base their opinion on the actual words spoken

Like the "right to privacy" not found in the Constitution?  


others have a need to filter those words through a bias lense

A comment such as "I know you've never faced those choices, nor have you ever been pregnant. But for women out there who have faced those choices, this is an incredibly difficult thing," requires little interpretation. The bias lense belongs to those in denial, which is btw a losing cause.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.1.29  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.28    2 weeks ago
Like the "right to privacy" not found in the Constitution?  

No. 

BTFW, rinsing and repeating the same BS doesn't make it any more factual. 

A comment such as"I know you've never faced those choices, nor have you ever been pregnant. But for women out there who have faced those choices, this is an incredibly difficult thing,"requires little interpretation. 

Yet you DID insert YOUR interpretation and insist that others embrace it. 

The bias lense belongs to those in denial, which is btw a losing cause.

False Vic. Any review of the comments in this seed proves that you've failed to make a cogent argument in support of YOUR interpretation of Psaki's statement. The majoirty disagree with you. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.1.30  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @10.1.14    2 weeks ago

Does the Catholic Church demand that it's followers adhere to each and every part of it's written dogma in order to consider themself a 'good' Catholic? 

Judging from the fact that thoughout history, the Catholic Church has allowed 'fallen' Priests to continue as 'Shepards' even after committing abhorant crimes, protected them and even profited from their actions is evidence that it does not. 

It seems to me that the Catholic Church set the precident of ignoring it's own dogma long before any American politician can be seen as doing so. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
10.1.31  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.21    2 weeks ago
She gets away with anything

Oh, wow, it's like she committed the Bowling Green Massacre.

And your source is the opinion of a Newsmax contributor?  That explains a lot.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
10.1.32  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.28    2 weeks ago

The right to privacy has been explained to you. You never did answer the questions posed in 5.1.5. I wonder why?

 
 
 
zuksam
Sophomore Silent
10.1.33  zuksam  replied to  Dulay @10.1.30    2 weeks ago
Does the Catholic Church demand that it's followers adhere to each and every part of it's wrtten dogma in order to consider themself a 'good' Catholic? 

They're at least supposed to aspire to follow the rules and confession of sins is an admittance of wrongdoing. Biden's problem is he thinks the church is wrong, that doesn't fly. He could say he believes abortion is wrong but as a government representative he doesn't feel he has the right to force his religious beliefs on others but saying he's right and the church is wrong doesn't allow for contrition, without an admittance of wrongdoing there can be no forgiveness though Confession. Biden hasn't just become a Sinner he has become an Advocate for Sin by calling what the Church calls wrong right.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.34  JohnRussell  replied to  Dulay @10.1.30    2 weeks ago

There have been "cafeteria Catholics" ( so named because they pick and choose what Church teachings to observe) for many decades now.  This comes from social changes around the world in the post WWII era. 

Protestants dont have a single voice of authority such as the Vatican. If there was we would likely see "cafeteria Protestants" too. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.1.35  Dulay  replied to  zuksam @10.1.33    2 weeks ago
Biden's problem is he thinks the church is wrong, that doesn't fly.

Do you have a link for that allegation? 

He could say he believes abortion is wrong but as a government representative he doesn't feel he has the right to force his religious beliefs on others

Biden is on record stating EXACTLY that. 

but saying he's right and the church is wrong doesn't allow for contrition, without an admittance of wrongdoing there can be no forgiveness though Confession. Biden hasn't just become a Sinner he has become an Advocate for Sin by calling what the Church calls wrong right.

WHEN did Biden say the Church was wrong? Link? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.1.36  Dulay  replied to  zuksam @10.1.33    2 weeks ago
They're at least supposed to aspire to follow the rules and confession of sins is an admittance of wrongdoing.

Then rinse and repeat right? 

At least THAT is what the Catholic Church has admitted to in all too many cases of fallen Priests. Of course when you add to that the FACT that the Catholic Church moved fallen Priests from parish to parish and even from country to country in order to cover up their 'transgressions'.

IMHO, the Catholic Church has abdicated all claim to the 'moral' high ground. 

It seems that year after year a new revelation exposing the Catholic Church is unearthed. I haven't even mentioned the disgusting victim blaiming and legal shenanigans that the Catholic Church has practiced.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.37  JohnRussell  replied to  Dulay @10.1.36    2 weeks ago

I'm sorry , the covering up of child sexual abuse occurs across society not only in the Catholic Church. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
10.1.38  Tacos!  replied to  zuksam @10.1.27    2 weeks ago
That would be true if Biden wasn't an Elected Official. As a Representative of the Government he wields the power of the Government, it's implied even if it's unintentional

The First Amendment has never been interpreted to mean that a government official - even the president - cannot fully participate in his own church or publicly express opinions about its doctrine.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.37    2 weeks ago
I'm sorry , the covering up of child sexual abuse occurs across society not only in the Catholic Church. 

That is true.

It is also true that one would be very hard-pressed to find any other institution which covered abuse up and condoned it for so long, only stopping when the publicity got too bad.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.1.40  Dulay  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.37    2 weeks ago

Never said it didn't John. 

Oh and BTFW, I'm not just talking about child sexual abuse. 

I hope that you will acknowledge that the Catholic Church has an inherant obligation to be truthful with it's parishioners AND to counsel them based on it's proclaimed FAITH rather than on mitigating it's own monetary liability, as do ALL entities that claim religious autonomy and authority. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.1.41  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.39    2 weeks ago

Unfortunately, the jury is out on whether is HAS stopped. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.42  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.31    2 weeks ago
And your source

My source is my own eyes.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.43  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @10.1.29    2 weeks ago
No. 

Yes!  I notice that you can't show me where it is. I'll wait.


BTFW, rinsing and repeating the same BS doesn't make it any more factual. 

Then why do it?


Yet you DID insert YOUR interpretation and insist that others embrace it. 

It's known as the obvious


False Vic. Any review of the comments in this seed proves that you've failed to make a cogent argument in support of YOUR interpretation of Psaki's statement. 

True Dulay: And the rational mind agrees


The majoirty disagree with you. 

What does that mean? The majority of the CCP would disagree with me too.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.44  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.32    2 weeks ago
The right to privacy has been explained to you.

In all the time I've know you, you have yet to show us where it is, nor has Justice Blackmun.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
10.1.45  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.44    2 weeks ago
In all the time I've know you, you have yet to show us where it is, nor has Justice Blackmun.

Then you clearly do not understand how the SCOTUS operates or the relevant rulings. And you still haven't answered my questions. Why the  deflection?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
10.1.46  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.42    2 weeks ago

You quoted the opinion of a far right wing conspiracy theory site.  Not a credible support for your position.

When Psaki is announcing that she's pushing "alternative facts", be sure to let us know, mmkay?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.47  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.45    2 weeks ago

You haven't answered mine. If you could have done that you'd win the argument.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
10.1.48  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.47    2 weeks ago

I already won the argument. You just don't know it. Or fail to accept it, which is your problem and not mine. The right to privacy is an accepted legal precedent and constitutional right. Every legal scholar, from a first year law student to a SCOTUS Justice knows this. You have not offered anything to refute that outside of your own opinion. Your refusal or inability to answer my very simple questions only shows your position lacks any merit and your argument thusly falls flat!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.49  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.46    2 weeks ago
You quoted the opinion of a far right wing conspiracy theory site.  Not a credible support for your position.

It wasn't intended to be support for my OPINION. I happen to think my opinion is reasonable and I don't need to parse words. Just like my opinion of comment 11 is reasonable and when Perrie arrives, I'll see if It was as obvious as it seems.

It's the same as me saying to you "unless you know the kind of decisions a man has to make, you will be irrelevant.  Everyone can plainly see it Sandy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.50  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.48    2 weeks ago
I already won the argument.

Then why are you still arguing?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
10.1.51  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.50    2 weeks ago
Then why are you still arguing?

I'm simply asking you a couple questions. You started the "argument" when you claimed the SCOTUS was legislating, which you also failed to demonstrate how. Then you double down on your dodge debate tactics by repeatedly not answering my questions posed to you. You could have avoided an "argument" had you simply admitted you were wrong. That would have been the honest thing to do.

I happen to think my opinion is reasonable and I don't need to parse words.

Your opinion about your opinion doesn't mean much.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
10.1.52  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.49    2 weeks ago

Everyone sees that's how you interpret it.

But most people agree that women are adult humans with bodily autonomy, and agree therefore that the person who decides what a woman does with her body is, well, her, not a man, nor another woman.  If I were to experience an unwanted pregnancy and decided to terminate, it would be none of your business, not because you're a man, but because you're not me.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
10.1.53  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.52    2 weeks ago

Well said Sandy. That pretty much sums it up. jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.1.54  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.43    2 weeks ago
Yes!  I notice that you can't show me where it is. I'll wait.

I notice that you never asked me to. 

Although I HAVE cited the fact that the SCOTUS cited the 9th and 14th Amendments.

Then why do it?

It's your practice, not mine Vic. 

It's known as the obvious

I hate to burst your bubble Vic but you views are in a very small minority.

True Dulay: And the rational mind agrees

No Vic. Oh and pretending that yours is the only rational position is ludicrous. 

What does that mean?

What part of my comment didn't you understand Vic?

The majority of the CCP would disagree with me too.

Yet your 'calling' for being here is to sway 'our readers' and in that you failed miserably. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.1.55  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.44    2 weeks ago

How the fuck would you know Vic, you've never actually read Blackmun's opinion. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.1.56  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.49    2 weeks ago
It wasn't intended to be support for my OPINION.

Yet it's obvious to 'our readers' that it was intended to support your POSITION, which is what Sandy said. 

I happen to think my opinion is reasonable and I don't need to parse words.

That is an utterly hilarious comment Vic. 

If not for 'parsing words', you wouldn't be able to express your opinion or interpretation of Psaki's statement. 

Maybe you should reconsider your aversion to the perfectly acceptable practice. 

It's the same as me saying to you "unless you know the kind of decisions a man has to make, you will be irrelevant. 

It isn't, but you be you Vic. 

 Everyone can plainly see it Sandy.

The majority of 'our readers' have already expressed their view that they do NOT agree with your interpretation Vic. It shouldn't be that hard to admit at least that much.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
10.1.57  Split Personality  replied to  zuksam @10.1.33    2 weeks ago

Every politician has to put his Catholicism, Jewishness or Hinduisms aside when he is acting as an elected official.

That is what is right with Joe Biden and wrong with Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick.

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
10.1.58  Gazoo  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.57    2 weeks ago

That is so partisan not to mention ilhan omar and rashida tlaib.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
10.1.59  dennis smith  replied to  Dulay @10.1.26    2 weeks ago

And there are some who feel the need to tell others what someone meant when they spoke instead of letting the speakers words stand. That is certainly true for [deleted] supporters. Trying to spin his words shows their bias.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
10.1.60  Split Personality  replied to  Gazoo @10.1.58    2 weeks ago

Partisan ??????

Ooooh I missed a religion or two?

Go troll someone else based on partisanship.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.1.62  Dulay  replied to  dennis smith @10.1.59    2 weeks ago

Gee, let's apply that to this seed:

And there are some who feel the need to tell others what someone meant when they spoke instead of letting the speakers words stand. That is certainly true for Trump  supporters. Trying to spin her words shows their bias.

See how that works dennis? 

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
10.1.63  Gazoo  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.60    2 weeks ago

You criticize others for being partisan yet here you are, being partisan. That’s not trolling, that’s pointing out inconsistencies in your behavior.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
10.1.64  Split Personality  replied to  Gazoo @10.1.63    2 weeks ago

Guess you missed my criticisms of Clinton, Clinton, Obama and Biden over the last 14 years.

No problem.

Go fuck off,  go troll someone else.

I've been here for 10 years and at NV since 2007 but I do understand

that when your standing in the lowest point of the valley you are looking up at everyone else.

I will gladly lend you some climbing equipment when you are ready to get out of the partisan gutter.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
10.1.65  mocowgirl  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.52    2 weeks ago
If I were to experience an unwanted pregnancy and decided to terminate, it would be none of your business, not because you're a man, but because you're not me.

Exactly.

100 percent of the problem is that some strangers believe that they have a right to legislate medical decisions by claiming they have the right to do so because they are and/or belong to an organization that is the epitome of morality.

These are self-righteous, power hungry individuals/organizations/cults that should never have been allowed to play Game of Thrones with our lives for any reason.

We need to recognize what our laws have allowed the religious, utopian seeking zealots to do to themselves in the not so distant past.  In the distant past, the atrocities committed, even to members of their own sect, are horrifying and should be researched, taught and remembered.  

I don't want or need any Jim Joneses in my life.  I don't know anyone who does.

Jo nestown Massacre - Crime Museum

On November 18, 1978, more than 900 members of the Peoples Temple died in a mass-suicide under direction of Jim Jones in what is known today as the  Jonestown Massacre .

The Jonestown settlement began as a church in Indiana, but it relocated to California and then finally moved to Guyana in South America in the 1970s. The moves were prompted by negative attention in the media. Nearly 1,000 followers moved with the hopes of forming a Utopian community. On November 18, 1978, U.S. Representative Leo Ryan traveled to Jonestown to investigate claims of abuse. He was murdered along with four other members of his delegation. Jones then ordered his followers to ingest poison-laced punch while armed guards stood by. Prior to the 9/11 attacks, Jonestown was the single largest loss of U.S. civilian life in a non-natural disaster.

WHO WAS JIM JONES?

Jim Jones (1931-1978) was a self-proclaimed minister that worked in small churches throughout Indiana. He opened the first Peoples Temple of the Disciples of Christ church in Indianapolis in 1955. It was a racially integrated congregation, which was uncommon for the time. Jones moved his congregation to California in the early 1970s, opening churches in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Jones was a powerful public leader, often involves in politics and charitable organizations. He moved to Guyana after followers shared with the media that he was an unjust leader. Followers claimed that he wanted to be called “Father,” forced them to give up their homes and custody of their children to join him, and often beat them.

JONESTOWN

The Jonestown settlement was less than promised. Members worked in agricultural labor and were subjected to mosquitoes and disease, forced to stay as Jones had confiscated their passports and medications. Upon Leo Ryan’s visit, Jones grew paranoid and told his followers that people would be sent to torture and kill them; the only option would be mass-suicide. He had the youngest killed first, ingesting a fruit juice with cyanide, then the adults were ordered to line up outside and do the same. The eerie photos of the aftermath show families huddled together, their arms around each other. Jim Jones was found in a chair with a bullet wound in his head, likely self-inflicted.
Some were able to escape the massacre, others were in other areas of Guyana that morning, many have shared their survivor stories with the media .

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
10.1.66  Split Personality  replied to  mocowgirl @10.1.65    2 weeks ago

How I wish I could vote this up a thousand times...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
10.1.67  Ender  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.64    2 weeks ago

I was wondering how saying religion should not play a part in those that govern is partisan....

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
10.1.68  Split Personality  replied to  Ender @10.1.67    2 weeks ago

It's all in the eyes of the preacher silly.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
10.1.69  mocowgirl  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.66    2 weeks ago
How I wish I could vote this up a thousand times...

I humbly thank you.  I have spent the majority of my life living among the zealots. I have been surrounded by and married to an assortment of abusive personality types all of my life.  As a Christian, I couldn't reconcile why a perfect, loving God would create such vermin to torture the compassionate.  As an atheist, I know it did not happen.  Evolution and society are responsible.

It is logical that abusive people usually need power over others in order to have victims.  Some have to be satisfied with only abusing weaker family members - usually the women and children.   Some manage to control large enough organizations to cause widespread harm throughout their community, or country, or even the entire world.

 Abusers seek and recognize their prey just like any other predator.  I honestly believe in order to save lives we need to teach people (including teenagers) about psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists and other borderline personality traits as a public service.  The very last thing they need to be taught is that they have a duty "to understand, help and forgive" abusers.  Trained professionals can't help many, if not most, of these people. 

The link below is about religious narcissistic leadership.  There are explanations to how these men's personality disorders drove them to abuse others.

Pathological Narcissism And The Cult Leader | Crime Traveller
Leading a cult can be the perfect role for a narcissist. Being the center of attention and looked up to by a submissive obedient group of people feeds their ego and encourages their dominance.

C ult leaders are often high up on the  narcissistic scale  with seven or eight of the identified traits. Being able to exert control over others under the label of religion suits a narcissist very well. In many cult movements, members are required to and often willingly look up to their leader as a God which serves their purposes extremely well. Loyalty is vital, compliance and respect an expectation and disobedience would not be tolerated. They also show high levels of manipulation in being able to encourage and entice followers, gaining trust and confidence quickly and effectively. They excel at selecting the vulnerable, expanding their flock with confidence.

When faced with confrontation and a threat to their empire such leaders will resort to extraordinary lengths to preserve their power and their status. Jim Jones of Jonestown,  David Koresh of the Branch Davidians  and Warren Jeffs, the polygamist leader, all showed narcissist traits in abundance and all proved themselves to be very dangerous men.

and explanations for murders that some people find "unexplainable".  It can be explained.  It seems that a lot of people have difficultly accepting the explanation.

When Narcissistic Rage Ends In Murder | Crime Traveller
It is almost unheard of for one individual to have all nine traits on the narcissistic scale but those who do have the potential to be extremely dangerous individuals, with those around them being at the most risk from what is termed narcissistic rage.

T he appearance of narcissistic traits within those who kill has been on the table for a long time. Ted Bundy for example, who became one of America’s most notorious serial killers was what you could call a classic narcissist. This was a man who once caught and being assessed by a psychological profiler from the FBI, offered to go to the FBI Behavioural Science Unit and teach investigators about his crimes and motives, an offer which the FBI refused. According to Robert Ressler , a profiler who assessed some of the worst serial killers in American history, Ted Bundy was a ‘ master of his game ’.

Narcissists, by their very nature, don’t take responsibility for their actions or events around them. They do not admit they have any faults or could be at fault because they genuinely don’t believe that they are. They would not call themselves a narcissist and they certainly wouldn’t believe that they had a personality disorder.  Cult leaders are typical examples of pathological narcissists.  They believe they are special and powerful and they show the level of control and dominance such beliefs can achieve.

I wonder if the men who have murdered abortion providers experience narcissistic rage as a result of their self-perceived authority being ignored?

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
10.1.70  dennis smith  replied to  Dulay @10.1.62    one week ago

Just another "But Trump" comment. 

See how that works Dulay?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.1.71  Dulay  replied to  dennis smith @10.1.70    one week ago
Just another "But Trump" comment. 

My comment didn't mention Trump, only his supporters. 

See how that works Dulay?

Not well for you.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
10.1.72  dennis smith  replied to  dennis smith @10.1.70    one week ago

Spin however you want. 

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
10.1.73  Gazoo  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.64    one week ago

Lmao!

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
11  Hallux    2 weeks ago

             "What a condescending, dirty, feminist comment."

And once again the seeder taints the conversation purposefully with an opening condescending and patriarchal opinion.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
11.1  Split Personality  replied to  Hallux @11    2 weeks ago

The "reporter" tried for a "gotcha" question and got handed his own balls.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
11.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Split Personality @11.1    2 weeks ago
got handed his own balls

A condescending, dirty, misogynist question, at that.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

"Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that  Roe  was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.

Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.”

“My criticism of  Roe  is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on  Roe  was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it? ” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”




lawschool_2012-13_2013-05-11_0049.jpg?itok=zr6iVj5p

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
12.1  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @12    2 weeks ago

Jesus, you mean you actually understand it and still persist in your misogynies?

Amazing !

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
12.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @12.1    one week ago

Actually, I don't think he DOES understand the link or the quote. 

By 'faulty' Gingrich meant based on the physician's right vs a woman's right. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Gordy327
Kavika
Trout Giggles
Texan1211
Sunshine
Tessylo
MrFrost
JohnRussell
evilgenius
Duck Hawk

cjcold
Gazoo
Ronin2
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom


40 visitors