MalamuteMan

If that doesn’t light a fire under your lazy ass…

  
By:  MalamuteMan  •  Politics  •  one month ago  •  437 comments

If that doesn’t light a fire under your lazy ass…






In 2016, you weren’t very excited about Hilary… but you knew there was no way that clown Trump would win, so you just sat that one out…You and way too many other people. Then Trump did get elected.

Trump, with McConnell’s help, seated 3 right-wing ideologues on the supreme court. Today, those righties, along with a couple seated by GWB, completely ended all federal protection for a woman’s rights over her own body.

If that doesn’t light a fire under your lazy ass, you can kiss American democracy goodbye right now…






Tags

jrBlog - desc
[]
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
1  al Jizzerror    one month ago

Moscow Mitch violated the Constitution by not permitting a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland (Obama's nominee to SCOTUS).  He claimed it was too close to the election to have the hearing.  The election was ten months away.

When Trump nominated judges for SCOTUS, McConnell happily created a "carve out" in the filibuster so Democratic Senators were castrated.  McConnell held a confirmation hearing for Amy Barrett just two weeks before the election.

If the Republicans win back the House and get one more Senator, they will make abortion illegal nationwide. McConnell will be happy to get rid of the filibuster so the Republicans can accomplish that goal.  

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
1.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    one month ago
If the Republicans win back the House and get one more Senator, they will make abortion illegal nationwide. McConnell will be happy to get rid of the filibuster so the Republicans can accomplish that goal.  

Yep, as predicted, more fear mongering...

You got anything other than personal political opinion?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
1.1.1  Gsquared  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1    one month ago
You got anything other than personal political opinion?

Try this to start:

House Republicans eye 15-week abortion ban after Roe ruling

 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1    one month ago
more fear mongering...

Is that your personal political opinion?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
1.1.3  Nowhere Man  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.1    one month ago

So no abortions after 15 weeks... That's not a complete abortion ban is it? it's not making abortion illegal is it?

Sounds like reasonable regulation to me... A pregnant woman has 3 & 3/4th months to make up her mind if she wants to keep her child or not....

Very reasonable in my opinion... Nothing is being taken away she still has her choice and control of that choice...

It also conforms to abortion law in most of the world... (especially Europe)

So I guess it really is about absolutism isn't it...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.3    one month ago
A pregnant woman has 3 & 3/4th months to make up her mind if she wants to keep her child or not....

Not really.  A decent biology class could tell you this.  Many women don't know they're pregnant until 6 or more weeks along.  That cuts considerably into the time available for decision-making and planning.  Lack of access to a facility adds a further burden, by design.

 
 
 
MalamuteMan
Professor Participates
1.1.5  author  MalamuteMan  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1    one month ago
"...personal political opinion"

Being forced to carry a baby they are not prepared to support and care for to term is now much more than an "opinion"... it is a very difficult and oppressive REALITY for many American women. Republicans are making it clear they have no intention stopping with this.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
1.1.6  al Jizzerror  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1    one month ago
more fear mongering...

I'm sorry I scared you.

Are you pregnant?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
1.1.7  Gsquared  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.3    one month ago

If you think the Republicans are actually willing to settle for that, guess again.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.8  igknorantzrulz  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.2    one month ago

sometimes, arguments, go nowhere

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.9  CB   replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1    one month ago

As predicted, the usual suspects, untruth tellers, continue gaslighting us by any means necessary. Are you 'woke' yet democrats? You let them punk you up to this point, CAN YOU HEAR AND SEE TRUMPISM NOW?!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.10  Ronin2  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.3    one month ago
It also conforms to abortion law in most of the world... (especially Europe)

The left love Europe, except when it comes to abortion laws. Then they don't even want to discuss it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.9    one month ago
Are you 'woke' yet democrats?

They certainly seem to be.

Maybe soon they will realize that being 'woke' isn't resonating with voters.

 
 
 
MalamuteMan
Professor Participates
1.1.12  author  MalamuteMan  replied to  CB @1.1.9    one month ago
Are you 'woke' yet democrats?

Well... My arch-conservative nephew thinks I am.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.10    one month ago
The left love Europe, except when it comes to abortion laws. Then they don't even want to discuss it.

European nations, for the most part, don't make it impossible to get an abortion until the deadline has passed, and then say "whoops, time's up!"

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
1.1.14  Nowhere Man  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.7    one month ago
If you think the Republicans are actually willing to settle for that, guess again.

Not being one, I wouldn't hazard to guess what they are aiming for... If it is an absolute ban, I'll be out there doing everything I can do to shut that down... Cause it is morally wrong for them to impose their belief system on another the same as it is wrong for democrats to do the same..

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.15  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.11    one month ago

And maybe you should take your, language nazism, off my comment. You're not a democrat or equivalent of one, so on this one, I am pretty sure you don't get a voice. Democrats stop over-talking. Just do it.  Where ever conservatives are- they are demonstrating 'power' and control (action) over their spaces with a "in yo face" attitude to boot!

And after taking action they come sit in yo face and talk you to death about it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.15    one month ago

I have every right to voice my opinion whether you like it or not!

Don't bother to look at polls proving me right.

Get lost with that language Nazi shit!

That is some weak sauce!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.17  CB   replied to  MalamuteMan @1.1.12    one month ago

Forgive me, but I don't have time for arch-conservatives bull crap. They're full of it. Who cares what term they disparage. I think they are full of it.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.18  Kavika   replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.3    one month ago

Actually, the 15-week abortion law in FL states that the 15-week start is from the 1st day after the women's last period. That effectively cuts the 15 weeks to 11 weeks, of course, anyone with half a brain is aware that the monthly period is not universal to all women. The half-a-brain rule eliminates many politicians and supporters of the 15 week gambit.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
1.1.19  Nowhere Man  replied to  Kavika @1.1.18    one month ago

And that is wrong.. It should start in my opinion from the time she is medically established to be pregnant, which would include a home pregnancy test...

Take all guesstimation out of it... 

Probably not the best solution, but the particulars could be sorted out afterwards... Definitely better than guessing the end of the last period, she could easily not be pregnant by 3-6 weeks past... Science will come up with an answer as soon as there is a demand for it....

And the 15 week law will create a demand for it...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.20  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.16    one month ago

You are not a democrat and you don't play one for convenience. I was looking for any "resonating" from a republican when I wrote the comment. And you knew that  Furthermore, I have every right to voice the word "woke" whether you like it or not. And I will. Bump that. I don't need you to 'expertly' tell me how I should address those I vote for and with.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.21  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.19    one month ago

What other medical decisions do you think should receive outside scrutiny? Why in the world should anyone know the status of an individual?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.22  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kavika @1.1.18    one month ago
anyone with half a brain is aware that the monthly period is not universal to all women.

It is actually normal for teenage girls to have very irregular menstrual cycles, and they are the same people who would have difficulty accessing reliable contraception.  They may not have the means to get to a doctor on their own, and therefore rely on their partners to use condoms.  That's pretty much a recipe for an unwanted pregnancy that will not be detected early.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.20    one month ago
You are not a democrat and you don't play one for convenience.

That is for sure!

You can write whatever you wish. Doesn't mean I will willingly swallow the swill.

If you think 'woke' policies are helping Democrats, by all means, keep on keeping on!

Polls and even some Democrats have tried to get the Party to see it is a losing proposition.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.24  Kavika   replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.19    one month ago
Probably not the best solution, but the particulars could be sorted out afterwards

It's a horrible solution. Passing a law that you know is a problem and waiting to fix it afterward is at best ass-backward.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.25  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.23    one month ago

Thank you, I will. Sitting around waking on conservatives to cold-cock them ain't helping liberals one damn bit. And by now, liberals should see that conservatives are focused on them like white on rice. It is liberal wake the blank up o'Clock!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.25    one month ago
And by now, liberals should see that conservatives are focused on them like white on rice.

Wow--just like you with your daily diatribes about 'some conservatives'!

LMAO!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.27  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.26    one month ago

You can call it whatever you like. I don't mind. Because I see what is happening. And on that note: Clarence is warning liberals to 'get ready' for the next batch of decisions once the cases 'hit.'

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.27    one month ago

Don't be scared.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.29  CB   replied to  Kavika @1.1.24    one month ago

Kavika, I think I saw a breaking news story this morning that Florida is reintroducing a fetal heartbeat bill that DeSantis has signaled he will sign when it comes up to him? Did you hear this just today locally?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.30  Ender  replied to  CB @1.1.27    one month ago
“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’ ... we have a duty to
’correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas added.

He is saying is he ready to rule on things and overturn them. He flat out says it and some people will still deny.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1.1.31  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.3    one month ago
That's not a complete abortion ban is it? it's not making abortion illegal is it?

Why Yes..... Yes it is. Ask any Democrat, Liberal or Progressive (The new and improved chicken littles). pfffffft !

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.32  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.1.27    one month ago

Thing is ole clarence needs to get the required number of OTHER justices to agree to hear those "cases " i think if i remember right its a total of 5 have to agree to hear one  , remember the court only hears those they agree to hear , they get to pick and choose  so to speak .

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.33  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.32    one month ago

You are only excusing what he is saying. He is on the highest court in the land basically inviting people to bring the lawsuits and he would vote accordingly.

You see no problem with a justice doing that?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
1.1.34  Nowhere Man  replied to  Kavika @1.1.24    one month ago
It's a horrible solution. Passing a law that you know is a problem and waiting to fix it afterward is at best ass-backward.

Maybe so, in my experience all laws passed have issues that can not be foreseen that need to be adjusted for... And laws generally have prospective application... I don't care what political perspective a person takes, there are no "Perfect" laws passed right out the gate... they all need to be adjusted as time and conditions warrant...

And such is better done on the local level benefitting the needs of the community served, not a blanket, nationwide, one size fits all approach that was Roe...

Roe was bass-ackwards in creating something that didn't exist to solve a problem in a manner that didn't serve well at all, as the 50 years of unresolved back and forth has so readily demonstrated.... The abortion issue in this nation is settled, the rest of it is simple regulation like all other medical procedures have regulations... And that is best served on the local level where each state has it's agencies to handle that...

I understand the angst of losing a blanket law covering every one no matter how well served or not is to the political people who support such a gut wrenching thing... But think for one minute about those that weren't being served by the law... It's a great day for those who's positions are just as valid as any other...

Personal opinions aside...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.35  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @1.1.30    one month ago
e is saying is he ready to rule on things and overturn them. He flat out says it and some people will still deny.

Lol. He's been saying that for years.  IF you think this the first time Thomas has called the doctrine of "substantive due process" erroneous, you haven't been paying attention. 

(1) He wants those cases reheard to see if their is another basis upon which they might stand.  Doesn't say how he would rule under other theories. 

(2) Not a single other Justice agreed with him.

(3) Eight justices signed opinions literally saying the exact opposite in Dobbs. 

No one woke up today and said "Oh my God! Clarence Thomas doesn't think substantive due process is valid."  Anyone who has paid the slightest bit of attention to the Court has known that for decades. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.36  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.34    one month ago

You admit it is a medical decision yet you turn around and want a medical decision to be decided by a local town?

Pregnancy and abortion are medical problems and should not have the scrutiny of anyone besides the woman and her doctor.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.37  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.35    one month ago

Obviously he is not the only one willing to go against precedent.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.38  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @1.1.36    one month ago
You admit it is a medical decision yet you turn around and want a medical decision to be decided by a local town?

Talking out of both sides of his mouth.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
1.1.39  Nowhere Man  replied to  Ender @1.1.30    one month ago
He is saying is he ready to rule on things and overturn them. He flat out says it and some people will still deny.

Yes he is, and anyone who understands how the law works knows it and will readily admit it... EVERYTHING based upon the "Right to Privacy" created on Roe is now legally suspect..

Pretty much every lawyer in the nation knows this... Will that result in a flood of reversals? no.. It takes roughly 10 years on average for a case to pass thru the state courts to reach the federal level at the Supreme Court, federally it takes about 4 years to get there on average...

There may be challenges to many things anticipating this ruling coming up, but it's going to take a couple of decades for all of them to work their way thru the system and most of them will not be aimed at the heart of the ruling they are challenging... Then the Court picks and chooses what it's going to hear and what it leaves lie...

By that time the abortion issue will be long settled in the individual states, each state choosing which way it wishes to go... Unless the US Congress gets it's collective asses in gear and creates a nationwide abortion law which becomes the minimum all states have to adhere to and it is upheld by the Supreme Court... (something they couldn't do 50 years ago and don't appear any closer to now)

Such is the nature of the law and legal system in this nation... It changes with time and it abhors instant blanket change... The holding in Roe was bound from the start to eventually be overturned... As RBG was known to say herself cause it was bad law...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.40  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @1.1.37    one month ago

Obviously he is not the only one willing to go against precedent

Correct. Every single Justice appointed to the Court in the last 100 years has voted to overturn a precedent.

That's different than voting to overturn oneself, which very few justices have done.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.41  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @1.1.33    one month ago

actually , no I dont have a problem with that being done , because if i did i should also have a problem with any elected polititian that does the same . if so many elected officials would be facing trump like charges of insurrection  and sedition simply because of what they say .

 But because i understand what is required , what he says actually means nothing , because there are 4 more justices ( that have their own thoughts as individuals) that have to also agree to hear any case and there is no guarentee they would vote to rule as he would like , it could be an epic backfire .

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
1.1.42  Nowhere Man  replied to  Ender @1.1.36    one month ago
You admit it is a medical decision yet you turn around and want a medical decision to be decided by a local town? Pregnancy and abortion are medical problems and should not have the scrutiny of anyone besides the woman and her doctor.

Excuse me? there are medical standards written into law and administered by several state boards and agencies in each and every state....

There is no "Local" town that sets or administers such... Any law passed by a state will be subject to said boards and agencies...

The Woman, her Doctor, and what the State medical authorities allow... Just like it has been for well over 100 years...

Hyperbolic unrealistic political fearmongering is all you have left?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.43  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.39    one month ago

Ginsburg was pro choice and never would have shot down Roe.

Everyone should have a right to privacy when it comes to their medical decisions. Do you agree or not?

Seems to me that you are saying that marriage has no rights of privacy, medical decisions has no rights pf privacy, etc.

So I am now thinking no, you do not think abortion and pregnancy is medicinal.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.44  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.40    one month ago

Overturn oneself?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.45  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.41    one month ago

This is not an elected politician that we can vote out. This is a openly partisan person that admits he has an agenda and is on this court for life. The fact that you all will just dismiss this like business as usual is weird.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.46  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.42    one month ago

So not going to answer my question? Do you think pregnancy and abortion are medical decisions?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
1.1.47  Nowhere Man  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.38    one month ago
Talking out of both sides of his mouth.

And all you got left is insults?

Roe was the only thing dictating what happens with abortion? There are no other state medical agencies that now have to do what they have been doing for the last 150 years?

Do you guys on your side even see the ridiculousness of your position? of course not...

Without Roe we are already back in the dark ages... nothing else matters, nothing else will work...

Absolutism at it's finest...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.48  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @1.1.44    one month ago

Overturn oneself?

I mean to vote overturn a precedent they voted for.  It happens but it's rare. Highly unlikely justices will reverse positions they committed to in Dobbs. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.49  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.48    one month ago

Ah, thanks.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.50  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @1.1.45    one month ago
This is a openly partisan person that admits he has an agenda

You mean a consistent legal philosophy?? Lol

Impeach Thomas for being consistent and applying the same principles to every case he hears! The horror!

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
1.1.51  Nowhere Man  replied to  Ender @1.1.46    one month ago
So not going to answer my question? Do you think pregnancy and abortion are medical decisions?

I did answer your question... The fact that you want to direct the answer into something you can attack is not my concern and is irrelevant...

The conversation is devolving to the point of meaninglessness, and there is a large brewing desire to ridicule the messenger cause you can't challenge the truth....

So I will bow out now...  Given the approach that is coming, my point has been made.... 

And all you got left is deflection and insults...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.52  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.51    one month ago
I did answer your question

I didn't see it.

A simple yes or no is not that difficult.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.53  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ender @1.1.33    one month ago

He is not supposed to show his hand to produce a picture of a non biased no opinion till all facts of that specific matter, are presented. Yes, he just invited the out of touch with reality 'right' to bring forth the arguments so that rights might possibly be controlled or modified so as to impose the will of some, upon, some others.  Our forefathers are causing tombstones  to gently wave in those amber fields of grain, as forced is that of the centrifugal,  B cause even the Laws of Physics, were meant to be broken, at least once a day, like clock work, from a clock that doesn't work, overtime, once a day, like a vitamin, some won't swallow, but only because it's a chewable, and if you stop, and watch a stop watch go, from 0 to a past time, is it actually , now your pastime to employ the puncher inn of the clock that doesn't work overtime daily due to week argumeants for sum, because you would have to force some others to tolerate the indifference that differentiates between the ability to tell over time, that one, is the decider of what is actually True, no matter the evidence, or lack there  of, is now ruled above what one sees and hears with their own pairs of eyes and ears, cause it's all fake News till you make it not up to yourself to actually LEARN, and diligently pursue the actual truth, as opposed to lying in your room stop watching the clock work, because it doesn't change my mind of that which i have personally found to be real, in the reality i in which i chose to make sweet n real       with artificial sweetners making up the ingredients gathered to make up reality, artificially duplicated with original thoughts , yet to be thought of, till thought of

i think....therefore, i am thinking, about thinking.....i don't know,,,,,,it was just a thought

well, at least i thought it was, but was it a thought about thinking about a thought that did up and bring this about

or, just a black and white flashback to those slippery acid daze, where , one just kept dropping that acid, like a rushed pass not caught by the thrown receiving perceived , for the thrown did the throwing, and was thrown out to incite out of sight and mind lost to time

time spent    watching a stop watch like clockwork that doesn't work overtime cause the clock was punched      in the face of reason    is where i pilot my plane and simply fancy thought

less of's,

by

More Ons 'right'  where i left them , worn 

out

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.54  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.47    one month ago
And all you got left is insults?

Says the guy who said this:

Yep, as predicted, more fear mongering... You got anything other than personal political opinion?

I said you're talking out of both sides of your mouth because you are.  You proudly announce that you marched for abortion rights, while supporting the curtailment of abortion rights.  You contradict yourself.

Without Roe we are already back in the dark ages... nothing else matters, nothing else will work...

Without Roe, there are states planning to force the victims of rape and incest to carry the pregnancy that started with their attack to term.  To you, whether a woman or girl should be subject to such physical, emotional, and possibly financial abuse should be determined by geography - whether or not she's lucky enough to live in an area that allows her to limit her own victimization.

But you marched for abortion rights.

Both sides of your mouth.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.55  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.50    one month ago

There is nothing we can do.  Now most people know he is a complete partisan. He is tainting the court with his rhetoric.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.56  igknorantzrulz  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.38    one month ago
Talking out of both sides of his mouth.

i do that, so i can hear the other side of the argument, while gargling adjusted scope and magnitude

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.57  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @1.1.45    one month ago
This is not an elected politician that we can vote out. This is a openly partisan person that admits he has an agenda and is on this court for life.

well you got one part right , maybe 2 , he is appointed and i do think he is partisan , but he is by no means set for life .

 makes me wonder what you actually do know about government, its processes and mechanisms  .

 you are aware that justices can be impeached right? impeachment is not only for Presidents or VPs. and pretty much worksthe same way , matter of fact i think, unless i am wrong more justices have been impeached and removed than have presidents .

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
1.1.58  Nowhere Man  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.54    one month ago
I said you're talking out of both sides of your mouth because you are.  You proudly announce that you marched for abortion rights, while supporting the curtailment of abortion rights.  You contradict yourself.

I haven't contradicted myself one bit... I support abortion for those that need it or desire it... within reason...

I have never supported the method the court used to establish abortion as legal in this country... At one time I was willing to support that ends justify the means judgment but as time wore on and I watched that singular judgment used way beyond it's intended scope to justify all sorts of stuff that had nothing to do with saving women's lives.. I came to the understanding that it did more damage than good...

You are expressing that the federal blanket abortion rights that were just struck down is a complete curtailment of abortion in this country... that position isn't factually or constitutionally true...

So, all I am now getting is your absolutist opinion completely ignoring the facts and the law...

Opinions and understandings grow and change as time goes by, mine have, it appears by your own words that yours haven't...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.59  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.57    one month ago

Makes you wonder? Well keep on wondering because I am not the one excusing what he is doing.

No SC justice has ever been impeached.

Over the country’s history, 15 federal judges have been impeached, and eight removed from office; others resigned in the wake of scandal instead.
 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.60  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.58    one month ago
I watched that singular judgment used way beyond it's intended scope to justify all sorts of stuff

I am curious as to what these things are you have seen...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.61  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.58    one month ago
I support abortion for those that need it or desire it... within reason...

Sure, sure, one of the "reasons" being where the woman lives.

federal blanket abortion rights

So, women in different states have different abortion needs?  Rights to bodily autonomy shouldn't be "blanket", for, well, reasons.

Opinions and understandings grow and change as time goes by, mine have, it appears by your own words that yours haven't...

An expert on my opinions, past and present, are you?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
1.1.62  Nowhere Man  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.57    one month ago
you are aware that justices can be impeached right? impeachment is not only for Presidents or VPs. and pretty much works the same way, matter of fact i think, unless i am wrong more justices have been impeached and removed than have presidents .

Unfortunately, You are wrong brother....

Has a Justice ever been impeached?

The only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805. The House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment against him; however, he was acquitted by the Senate.

As for the rest of the federal judiciary? you are then correct....

Fifteen federal judges have been impeached. Of those fifteen: eight were convicted by the Senate, four were acquitted by the Senate, and three resigned the office...
 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.63  igknorantzrulz  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.61    one month ago
An expert on my opinions, past and present, are you?

but, who elses opinion could you trust, in your opinion ? or should i ask out of Nowhwere Man 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.64  arkpdx  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.42    one month ago
Pregnancy and abortion are medical problems 

Unless it involves the life of the mother it is not a medical problem. Abortion for the convenience of the mother (which is why most abortions are performed) is not a life or death. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
1.1.65  Nowhere Man  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.61    one month ago
An expert on my opinions, past and present, are you?

Sorry, not going to take the bait...

I am only an expert on my own opinions... {chuckle}

And I can converse on the ones you express openly here in public... But your free to change them to what ever you want them to be to suit whatever argument you want to make... None of my business what you believe in...

Don't want them commented on don't express them...

Have a nice day...

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.66  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.64    one month ago

and what is wrong with convenience? 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.67  arkpdx  replied to  Ender @1.1.52    one month ago

It wasn't a yes or no question. Abortion can be a medical decision if the mother's life is in jeopardy. An a abortion for convenience (most of them) is NOT a medical issue other than it requires a medical professional to perform it. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.68  Ender  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.67    one month ago

You do not get to pick and choose what consists of a medical decision to fit your views.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.69  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @1.1.36    one month ago

"Pregnancy and abortion are medical problems and should not have the scrutiny of anyone besides the woman and her doctor."

That should  include the  FEDERAL  government!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.70  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.65    one month ago
I am only an expert on my own opinions... {chuckle}

It's not very smart to make pronouncements on topics one admits one is not an expert on, wouldn't you agree?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.71  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @1.1.59    one month ago
No SC justice has ever been impeached.

doesnt mean it cant happen now does it ?

 and thank you for providing the proof that they can be impeached as i said .

 ehh, your welcome to think whatever you want , even if you are wrong .

 you asked me if i was bothered by his actions , i was truthful because im not bothered. 

 and for the record i disagree with yesterdays ruling , but since it is what it is and the question now falls to the states to decide , that is where i will focus my attention , in my states jurisdiction  with the elected body here .

 (not ) sorry im not as agitated as you would like or that suits you . just not my style  .

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.72  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.66    one month ago

There is nothing inherently wrong with convenience. I really like having a 7-11 down the street from me but that convenience does not take a human life. Abortion does. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.73  Ender  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.69    one month ago

All the federal government did was give choice.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.74  sandy-2021492  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.69    one month ago
That should  include the  FEDERAL  government!

And state governments.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.75  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @1.1.73    one month ago
All the federal government did was give choice.

Exactly.  The federal government prevented scrutiny from those other than the woman and her doctor.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.76  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.71    one month ago

What am I wrong about? What did I say that was wrong?

Do you really think someone is going to try to impeach him? Even if they did he would most likely be acquitted as the one from over two hundred years ago.

Somehow I get the feeling if this was a Liberal justice you all would be screaming bloody murder.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.77  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.62    one month ago

i was speaking of the entire federal judiciary, which includes the SCOTUS.

 still more judges impeached and removed than presidents too...

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.78  arkpdx  replied to  Ender @1.1.68    one month ago

If the issue is on a ballot I most certainly do get to choose. I also have the right to petition my legislative representatives as to my choices. I have the right to elect those that I agree with or to vote out those I disagree with on those choices. I have the right to support and be a member of groups of like minded people and to voice our choice. 

Do you propose to take those rights away from me? Are the only choices that you approve of to be allowed?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.79  Ender  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.78    one month ago

When you get pregnant come back and talk about your choice.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.80  arkpdx  replied to  Ender @1.1.76    one month ago

And since it is a conservative leaning justice you are all up in arms. If he was a liberal you would be bending over backwards to defend him. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.81  arkpdx  replied to  Ender @1.1.79    one month ago

I said when I have that choice. Your comment is what the left always brings out when they know they have no rational response to a comment they don't like

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.82  Ender  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.80    one month ago

There is no justice I have defended, Liberal or conservative.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.83  igknorantzrulz  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.70    one month ago
It's not very smart to make pronouncements on topics one admits one is not an expert on, wouldn't you agree?

an opinion on one's own opinion, is redundant, but that's just my opinion on that which i redundantly have expressed via a passing lane on the torn rotator cuffed to shoulder a burden of proof  handily passed by weighing me down the clothes and opinions i share because i am greedy, about my own opinion,    We ALL are                      thus, Y i have no opinion, on my opinion of having no opinion

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.84  Ender  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.81    one month ago

So you have the choice to get pregnant?

So men can get pregnant. Miracles never cease.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.85  Ender  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.83    one month ago

You have an opinion with your opine.....

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.86  arkpdx  replied to  Ender @1.1.84    one month ago
So men can get pregnant

No but there are many on the left that seem to think they can. There are high ranking liberals that can not even define what a woman is when asked. The left even thinks that it is OK for men to pretend to be women so they can compete and win against real women when they were hopeless to beating men. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.87  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ender @1.1.85    one month ago

yea, but in my opinion, i will cease opinionating upon these opines, cause like cheesy Whines, they grow worse, and mold, is used to reproduce opinions on human reproductivity,  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.88  devangelical  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.78    one month ago
Do you propose to take those rights away from me? Are the only choices that you approve of to be allowed?

... oh, are you making a pro-choice argument now?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.89  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @1.1.76    one month ago
Somehow I get the feeling if this was a Liberal justice you all would be screaming bloody murder.

you were wrong about him sitting for life with no recourse , you showed that yourself he CAN be impeached , no matter how unlikely it is ,it can still happen .

 Now that statement i copied , you do not know me well enough to make that call or judgement  so you can check your judgement in the round file in the corner .

 and if it WERE a liberal justice spouting their desires , i would do the same thing i am right now , oh i might use sarcasm or make fun of them sure , thats more my style , lets them and their supporters know , they dont have the so called "power " they think they have. kinda like i do with any politician . its just the liberal side give soooo much and many targets of opertunity .

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.90  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.89    one month ago

You are basically saying the same thing I am. That there is really nothing we can do. 

You use your sarcasm...I use whatever it is I use....

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.91  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @1.1.90    one month ago

again you would be wrong .

difference between you and i is i dont scream at the sky , i know where the focus needs to be now , i cant do anything about what happened in the past .

 but I CAN try and do something where the matter now  rests , with my state legislature  and govenor . and they are alot closer to me than some pundits sitting in DC.

 wyoming lost its only abortion clinic this month , before the ruling , the Dr decided to retire and move to another state and no other dr would take over the practice . there was talkof another clinic opening , but that leak of the ruling put that all on hold and now looks like because of the ruling , it wont happen .

 What i understand my state will be doing is reverting back to the law that existed prior to roe ,but that one had exemptions that there is rumbling in state about removing , those i will oppose . as i will oppose the law itself , and vote accordingly .

 it wont be easy , wont be over night , but i wont stop either . i just have to convince a simple majority i am on the right path and for them to think the same .

 so i will let those that wish to participate in the dog,pony , and clown show to their own means , i know where i need to do the work . and it isnt following the herd here doing nothing but crapping the place up.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.92  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.91    one month ago

So I am screaming at the sky? I have tried to be civil to you and you have done nothing but insult.

As far as your vote, a medical decision should not be up for one as you seem to think it should be.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.93  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @1.1.92    one month ago

if disagreement on details is an insult , then have at it . then you must be alot more sensative than one would think.

 and please point out where i said a medical decision should be up for a vote?

 Im looking at where it stands here , right now with what is presented in my state , i work from there to change things , way to change things is to change the legislature to vote for those things  thats the ONLY way a vote will change things or has any influence  .

 you may not like it , but that is actually the reality of it .

I have been told almost my entire life , men should not and have no say in abortion , i have had some minor disagreements about that throughout my life that are irrelevant  , but i accepted that  in the end , the choice wasnt the mans it was the womans  .

 NOW after being told and accepting that , i am being told i need to  speak up and support women in this , either i have a say or i dont , i cant cause a pregnancy , i took care of that long ago,so i actually have no say because im not a participating effected  party  BUT now my help and support is demanded ? i will help and support withing the limits i think are right , not anyone elses , and if thats not good enough ? ill hand you a shovel and a hammer and point you to the beach ..

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.94  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.93    one month ago

That is the reality of it now. 

So you are saying it can only be done local and not at a federal level. If congress passed and the president signed a bill saying it was a private matter between doctor and patient, you would not be ok with that? If so, why not?

As far as the grumbling about wanting to have a say or not, it is just that.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.95  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @1.1.92    one month ago
So I am screaming at the sky?

So you have done something other than post on social media your displeasure since the ruling was announced ?

have you researched as i have how this ruling affects your state or is your state safe ?

 IF your state isnt safe have you , contacted and left messages with your state reps and senator  as i have ?

 because if you havent and all you have done is post to social media the tragedy and criminallity of the ruling , then you might as well just be flapping your gums screaming at the sky which does no good .

AND if you havent , you should be shamed and insulted by your own actions/ inactions for not thinking to do the same yourself .

here is the real insult , FUCK OFF.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.96  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.95    one month ago

Now who is screaming at the sky...Hahaha

So can't answer my question and go off on a tangent. Classy.....

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.97  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @1.1.96    one month ago

just saw your question , i was composing the other response first , now for your question . it can be state or federal it wont be local , the state wont allow that . , where it rests now is in states hands , if the feds legislature can come up with something , thats good too but i doubt there are the votes to pass that legislation on the national level considering how many already have the trigger bans in place  so it will for now likely stay a state issue where it will be dealt with by each individual state and by their state governments .

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.98  arkpdx  replied to  devangelical @1.1.88    one month ago

I have always been pro-choice. Where we differ is in the timing of the choice. I believe that if a woman does not want to become pregnant, she must choose before she crawls in the sack to have sex. Afterward is too late. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.99  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.95    one month ago
here is the real insult , FUCK OFF.

you forgot the !       Actually discussing the ruling on social media is action. Debunking blatant LIES, mis truths, exaggerations, and plain old bullshit, can be beneficial to educating those not capable or interested, in attempting to obtain the actual truth and reality where the actual truth and reality are blatantly violated and mutated, with the end result of a divided nation, where conspiracy theories allow the blinded masses of asses to get Jewish Lasik Eye Surgery so the QAnon  Quanundrum can see how evil democratic individuals  and celebrities cultivate children for consumption, while avoiding that ever troubling reality, that some will never see, as they chose to hear what they wanted to hear, and put their fingers in their ears, and call it Qanon tips, that should NEVER been inserted into ears, like it says on the box.

Your actions listed, are also required to expedite a solution to thwart, to me, an obvious invasion of privacy and attempt to force parenthood on women, for instinctively attempting the act of procreation, when succeeding was never the end game, as most just wish to practice. Primarily elderly White Males wish to dictate what a woman has a right to do with her own body, because they have somehow decided that they know better, than say the actual woman herselfishness as they claim, is what they wish to force share and impose, they most certainly have

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.100  igknorantzrulz  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.98    one month ago
Afterward is too late. 

and hear i've always heard it should be cuddling time 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.101  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.99    one month ago
you forgot the ! 

no i didnt , like johnny hancock , i wanted those sitting on their self made thrones to be able to see it from across the distance .

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.102  Kavika   replied to  CB @1.1.29    one month ago

I haven't heard anything about that, CB.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.103  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.101    one month ago

i have a self made porcelain thrown  

out the window with the bathwaterand kitchen sink in feeling, that resonates in the minds lost

at

a substantial cost , and at don't sea,

the depths that which some may and might not go, their way is not always the High way, but when speeding down lifes' lost Highway, finding myself, on the cuff, of a blade of padded and patted down back handed taps, on the  shoulder are not possible, as a pat on the back would require the re,moval of many knives that stuck and struck a cord of spinal, then tapped with, shouldering burdens that carry others   , blamed on some ass phault, with concrete evidence that is mortar and brick foundations than  meat the blackened  eye,  supporting lost  and found nations, Not in UK  but D K , and decay away is not okay, because spelt different and with different definitions, cause what would be the definition of definition , if it was taught in a fine prestigious school coarse, to fish.... as we flounder for an answer, i question the beating of the 'right'  for the heart of ones Base, stolen, when run around provides the shortest path to the fork in the drawer back , with the knives, that Basically cut Bass from the lines of big mouths and small, as the treble is addicting, and hooks via lures, in blocks of tackled boxes, where wrestled with is an out of the boxing ring that does a bell good, and can occupy time, while waiting in the call waiting waiting room, to get call waiting, so i can talk out of bothsides , of my large dry mouth while beating the drum

fished from a depth of an ocean, that not many will reach

around to help remove the knives stuck

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.104  Kavika   replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.34    one month ago

Most of what you posted is your opinion. If the US can't strive to get it right the first time perhaps we should re-evaluate the process. 

The abortion issue in this nation is settled, the rest of it is simple regulation like all other medical procedures have regulations... And that is best served on the local level where each state has it's agencies to handle that...

Nothing is settled law as we saw with the decision by SCOTUS on Roe vs Wade.

 

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
1.1.105  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.70    one month ago

That’s not a question.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.106  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.98    one month ago

Ok if there is  convenient, easy to take, 100% neverfailing, fool proof, guaranteed birth control with no side effects that works every time for every woman, until then a backup that is fixes the problem is necessary

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.107  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.106    one month ago

There is a 100% effective never failing, guaranteed birth control with not side effects of and works for every woman already. It is called abstinence. If you don't want to take the chance of getting pregnant don't have sex. You know just like all the liberals say men that don't want to be father's should do. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.108  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.54    one month ago
whether a woman or girl should be subject to such physical, emotional, and possibly financial abuse should be determined by geography -

So I guess you think everyone's rights should be the same all over. Do you also think that everyone should have the exact same rights to keep arms and to carry them in public? If not, why are some right able to be restricted by the states while others are not. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.1.109  Split Personality  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.80    one month ago

We, as Americans, either have due process, which is objective and treats all persons

the same or we don't. 

Denying someone control over their own body and their future potential is wrong. 

Simple, not political at all.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.110  arkpdx  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.109    one month ago

Then I will ask again since you ducked the question. 

Should everyone have the same rights to keep and carry a gun in every state 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.1.111  Split Personality  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.108    one month ago
So I guess you think everyone's rights should be the same all over.

Absolutely, from sea to shining sea,

regardless of gender, heritage or religious beliefs. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.112  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.109    one month ago
 either have due process, which is objective and treats all persons  t

That's called equal protection.

Simple, not political at all.

Said every zealot ever. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.113  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.111    one month ago
solutely, from sea to shining sea, regardless of gender, heritage or religious beliefs. 

Glad to see you oppose  affirmative action  etc...

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.1.114  Split Personality  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.110    one month ago
Then I will ask again since you ducked the question.

I won't travel down the off topic road of whataboutism with you, sorry.

Are women's rights different than men's by virtue of biology?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.115  arkpdx  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.114    one month ago

Apparently they are different I terms of the lefts thoughts on reproductive rights. Women can choose to be a mother or not. A man has no such choice. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
1.1.116  afrayedknot  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.115    one month ago

“Women can choose to be a mother or not. A man has no such choice.”

There is so much fucked up thinking in that response…

…relieving the man from any responsibility while they hold the power to make decisions to conveniently continue their absolution. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.117  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.107    one month ago

That is not fool proof, also sometimes women get raped

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.118  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.108    one month ago

You're not quite making a fair comparison here.  The citizens of all states have a right to keep and bear arms, to some degree or another.

Regarding abortion, in some states, it will be legal, and in other states, it will be almost totally banned.  Five states will ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest, basically physically and mentally punishing and potentially endangering the life of a woman for having been a victim of sexual assault.

Should a woman's ability to avoid being revictimized for being a victim depend on which side of a state line she lives on?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.119  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.115    one month ago
"Women can choose to be a mother or not. A man has no such choice." 

and it should be her choice. everybody else should stay out  especially politicians, preachers and busybodies  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.120  sandy-2021492  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.117    one month ago
That is not fool proof,

Very true.  I once worked with a woman who conceived both of her children while she was on the Pill.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
1.1.121  afrayedknot  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.120    one month ago

“…on the Pill.”

And that may be the next thing to go. Unimaginable, but inexplicably possible. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.1.122  Split Personality  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.115    one month ago
Apparently they are different I terms of the lefts thoughts on reproductive rights. .

For starters, there should be no left right injection into this.

Women can choose to be a mother or not.

No apparently they cannot or abortion would not be the topic, would it?

A man has no such choice

The man has no choice to be a mother, that much I agree with, but he can choose 

not to be a father by abstaining as you so champion.

It takes two to do this particular tango but the male far too often walks away denying 

parentage. while the woman is "stuck".

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.123  arkpdx  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.122    one month ago
not to be a father by abstaining as you so champion.

Women can abstain and not become a mother also.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.124  sandy-2021492  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.121    one month ago
And that may be the next thing to go.

That is even more frightening that the reversal of Roe, IMO.

If ever there were a time for women to go all Lysistrata, this is that moment.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.125  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.120    one month ago

I know of only one woman who became pregnant while abstaining from sexual contact and that happened over 2000 years ago. Abstaining from having intercourse is a 100% foolproof method of preventing pregnancy and childbirth 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.126  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.110    one month ago

It should be easier to get an abortion than get a gun 

To get a gun all you should have to do is show a voter ID card (good enough to vote then good enough to have a gun)

For an abortion, answer 3 questions:  1 Are you pregnant?  2  Do you want to remain that way? 3 are you ready to fix the problem 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.127  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.123    one month ago

     "  Women can abstain and not become a mother also."

why can't girls have fun?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.128  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.126    one month ago

1)It would be kind of hard to get an abortion if one is not pregnant. 

2) should have thought about that before you were able to answer number one in the affirmative ( rape excepted.)

3) there is no problem. You are going to be a mother.

Just to be sure since there seem to be so many on the left that don't seem to know, your real first question should be are you a woman. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.129  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.125    one month ago
I know of only one woman who became pregnant while abstaining from sexual contact and that happened over 2000 years ago.

Nah.  Ra was born to a virgin.  So was Horus.  And Jason.  Possibly Dionysius (he and Jason were both sons of Persephone, but Dionysius may or may not have been fathered by Zeus).  Some believe Buddha was, and Genghis Khan.  And Mithra, whose birthday Christians stole and gave to Jesus.

So, no, according to your myths and many others, abstinence is not 100%.  And according to your myth and many others, abstinent women sometimes are raped by gods, and surely, who can blame them for not being able to fight off a god?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.130  sandy-2021492  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.127    one month ago
why can't girls have fun?

Ah, and there's the point.  We all know what this is really about.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.131  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.129    one month ago

Many if not all of those of that you mentioned are just myths as you said and are not mine at all so you lose. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
1.1.132  afrayedknot  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.123    one month ago

“Women can abstain…”

…straight from the incel handbook. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.133  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.131    one month ago

Yeah, yours is just a myth, too, arkie.  With every bit as much (or as little) to support it as theirs.

Except Buddha and Genghis Khan, of course.  They were real.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.134  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.127    one month ago

Didn't say they couldn't but there are consequences to having that fun. One of them is that in around nine months later they may become a mommy. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.135  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.133    one month ago

In any case that is all irrelevant anyway

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.1.136  pat wilson  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.134    one month ago

And the partner becomes a daddy.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.137  arkpdx  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.132    one month ago
the incel handbook. 

Never heard of it. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.138  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.109    one month ago
We, as Americans, either have due process, which is objective and treats all persons the same or we don't.

I was surprised to see that out of the 62 times that the term due process was mentioned in the Court's opinion, the Dissenting Opinion only mentioned it twice and one of those was a footnote. The one time that Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan mention it, it isn't in a legal defense of Roe vs Wade but in a criticism of Justice Thomas  thoughts on relooking the Court's precedent in future cases.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.139  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.135    one month ago

Is it?

Contraception is not 100%.

Abstinence, according to YOU, is not 100%.  And it's irrelevant, as abstinence is not realistic.  Do you really think committed couples, perhaps married couples, are going to remain celibate to avoid pregnancy?  Would you?  Should you be expected to?  I don't think so.  And since I think you should have the opportunity to get laid (with a consenting partner, of course), I think everybody else should have that same opportunity.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.1.140  Split Personality  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.123    one month ago

And sometimes they do try that.

The result is often a rape or worse.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.141  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.128    one month ago
3) there is no problem. You are going to be a mother.
That is a big problem if you don't want to be a mother

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.142  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.123    one month ago

Men can abstain or end up paying child support.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.143  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.139    one month ago

I do believe you need to reread what I said. I said abstinence is always effective. Don't put words in my mouth. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.144  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.141    one month ago

Then you should not have had unprotected sex in the first place. Since as you say contraception is not 100% effective becoming a mother is the chance you take.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.145  arkpdx  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.142    one month ago

Why should men only have two options while women get several?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.146  JohnRussell  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.144    one month ago

Lets say that unprotected sex is a terrible mistake.  Should people lose their constitutional rights because they made a terrible mistake? 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.147  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.144    one month ago

By that logic, we don't need fire extinguishers, first aid kits or ice packs as accidents won't happen and we don't need back ups.   

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.148  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.146    one month ago

No one has lost any constitutional right yet. 

Mistakes have consequences 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.149  JohnRussell  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.148    one month ago

Women who live in states that just made abortion illegal have lost their constitutional rights. 

A week ago they had a constitutional right to an abortion, and now they dont. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.150  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.143    one month ago

You specifically mentioned a time when you "knew" it wasn't.  You really should look up the definition of "always".

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.151  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.149    one month ago

they can travel.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.152  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.148    one month ago

Read this

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Does that say that a woman has the right to be secure in her person?.  and shall not be violated?

Also Cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited, forced unwanted pregnancy sounds cruel and unusual  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.153  Sean Treacy  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.152    one month ago

Why do you think not a single  justice, some of whom are both extremely pro choice and Constitutional experts, has ever claimed the 4th Amendment creates a right to abortion? 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.154  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.149    one month ago

They have lost nothing. There never has been a right to an abortion.  If you think there was please cite the part of the constitution that says so. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.155  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.147    one month ago

When did I say accidents don't happen?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.156  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.152    one month ago
Does that say that a woman has the right to be secure in her person? 

Yes it does but it does not say that she has a right to an abortion. 

forced unwanted pregnancy sounds cruel and unusual  

Unless she was raped, no one forced a woman to get pregnant. Also pregnancy is neither cruel nor is it unusual nor is it a punishment. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.157  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.156    one month ago
Also pregnancy is neither cruel nor is it unusual nor is it a punishment.

Spoken like a person who's never been pregnant, nor been through childbirth.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.158  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.155    one month ago

should pencils have their erasers removed?  Should wrecked cars be left at the scene of the accident or cleaned up?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.159  Kavika   replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.157    one month ago

Perhaps experiencing childbirth would help some to understand. A suggestion for guys to try to get experience would be to shit a 16 lb bowling ball.

Just a thought.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.160  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.156    one month ago

If you don't want to be that way it is very cruel! 

Especially knowing the problem could easily be fixed.  

But make the poor girl suffer that is really cruel, then burden her with a kid she didn't want  and then wonder what when wrong when the unwanted child is abused or does something really bad.  Not fixing the first accident can lead to much greater problems down the road.  

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.161  charger 383  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.153    one month ago

I don't know why, but it is right there.  How can you be secure in your person when there is something inside that you do not want to be there and there is an easy way to remove it?

"shall not be violated " sounds as sacred as "shall not be infringed"

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.162  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.151    one month ago

why should they have to waste time and expensive gas?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.163  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.154    one month ago

there was until a few days ago, settled precedent 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.164  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.156    one month ago
     "Mistakes have consequences"  (1.1.148)
      "Also pregnancy is neither cruel nor is it unusual nor is it a punishment". (1.1.156)
sounds like punishing a mistake, one that could easily be corrected  
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.165  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kavika @1.1.159    one month ago
A suggestion for guys to try to get experience would be to shit a 16 lb bowling ball.

Yeah, after carrying said bowling ball around for a while.

I actually had an easy pregnancy compared to many, but I can't say it wasn't unpleasant at times.  My hips hurt.  Like every time I stood, and this was before I'd gained much weight at all.  It's a side effect of the pelvis loosening up in preparation for childbirth, and it starts months before the main event.

This, by the way, also leads to some clumsiness.  Your joints are loose, and your center of gravity is changing.

Sleeping became impossible.  There is no comfortable position.  You're not supposed to sleep on your back in late pregnancy, and it was uncomfortable, anyway.  Sleeping on your stomach is out for obvious reasons.  Side - holy crap, that extra weight turned my hips into pressure points.  I felt like they were digging right into the mattress springs.  And my legs went numb - like pins and needles in your feet, but it went all the way to my hips.  I fell getting out of bed one time, because my legs just sort of forgot what the hell they were doing and my feet couldn't feel the floor.  The nights got really long at this stage.

And I had a c-section, which I can tell you for sure is a punishment.  You're cut from hip to hip.  Air gets under your diaphragm, which causes severe pain in your shoulder, of all places.  For the first few days, the nurses check that incision by pushing on it really hard, which is all kinds of fun.  It was a fine time to find out I'd developed an iodine allergy I'd never had before.  And then your legs swell because your lymph ducts have been severed - that's one they don't warn you about ahead of time, so you're sure you've developed the blood clot in your legs that pregnant women are supposed to watch out for.

Meanwhile, you're eating hospital food, being woken up every single time you manage to doze off by someone wanting to push on your incision, take your lunch order at 5 in the friggin' morning, or ask how you're resting.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
1.1.166  al Jizzerror  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.129    one month ago
And according to your myth and many others, abstinent women sometimes are raped by gods, and surely, who can blame them for not being able to fight off a god?

800

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.167  Jack_TX  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.158    one month ago
should pencils have their erasers removed?  Should wrecked cars be left at the scene of the accident or cleaned up?

Nothing like heading off the deep end.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.168  Jack_TX  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.122    one month ago
The man has no choice to be a mother, that much I agree with, but he can choose 

not to be a father by abstaining as you so champion.

It takes two to do this particular tango but the male far too often walks away denying 

parentage. while the woman is "stuck".

Both men and women can choose to abstain, or either can choose birth control.

So in states where elective abortion is outlawed, women now have the same reproductive rights as men.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.169  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.163    one month ago

At one time slavery was legal and settled law. Separate but equal was settled law. Do you want to go back to those days? I know I don't. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.170  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.169    one month ago

So instead we are going back to when women are being treated as less than. That other people's religious beliefs are being forced on them. I think that is going backward. Sorry that you don't see that.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.171  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.160    one month ago
Especially knowing the problem could easily be fixed.  

There is no problem and there is nothing to be fixed. She had sex and became pregnant and will have à baby and become a mother. It has been that way for millions of years and will continue to be that way for many years to come. If there is a medical issue that is a different issue. Just not wanting to be pregnant or not wanting to be a mother or a baby would be inconvenient are not medical issues. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.172  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.169    one month ago

Except, a much more apt comparison would be if slavery were to be made legal again...

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.173  arkpdx  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.170    one month ago
So instead we are going back to when women are being treated as less than

As less than what? She has every right I do. If she doesn't want to be a mother and have that responsibility, she can abstain from having sex just like the man who does not want to be a father. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.174  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.173    one month ago

Why? Because you believe that life starts at conception? That is not my belief. It does not come from my traditions. You are forcing your beliefs on me.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.175  arkpdx  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.174    one month ago

You are forcing me to take on your beliefs. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.176  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.175    one month ago

No, I am not. That is the whole thing with choice. You can choose what you feel is right and I can choose what I feel is right. Right now, you have removed my choice from me.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.177  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.176    one month ago
Right now, you have removed my choice from me.

Not while you live in NY.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.178  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.171    one month ago

yes it is, if for no other reason than the results will not be optimal 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.179  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.91    one month ago

You are wrong.

Speaking of crapping the place up . . . . . 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.180  charger 383  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.168    one month ago

which is none and that is bad

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.181  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.175    one month ago

   "You are forcing me to take on your beliefs. "

Your trying to force us to take yours

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.182  Tessylo  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.121    one month ago

“…on the Pill.”

"And that may be the next thing to go. Unimaginable, but inexplicably possible."

TT (Clarence Token Thomas) is doing his best (or should I say Ginni Thomas) to restrict access to birth control, take gay rights backwards, everything except Loving vs. Virginia.  

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.183  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.173    one month ago
"she can abstain from having sex"

That just takes the fun out of things, what a dull and boring life

Not everybody wants to live like nuns and monks

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.184  Jack_TX  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.180    one month ago
which is none and that is bad

You're really stating that men have no reproductive rights?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.185  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.177    one month ago

My daughter is moving out of state. And it shouldn't matter where I live. All women are entitled to the same right of deciding for themselves. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
1.1.186  evilgenius  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.185    one month ago
All women are entitled to the same right of deciding for themselves. 

We are living through the Orwell Animal Farm where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. 

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
1.1.187  Veronica  replied to  evilgenius @1.1.186    one month ago

Very true.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
1.1.188  al Jizzerror  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.170    one month ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
1.1.189  Veronica  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.129    one month ago
women sometimes are raped by gods,

BINGO!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.190  devangelical  replied to  Veronica @1.1.189    one month ago

trumpsters have adopted the lebensborn concept on their march towards fascism.

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
1.1.191  Veronica  replied to  devangelical @1.1.190    one month ago

I actually see that.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.192  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.181    one month ago

If you mean that I believe a human life is more important than your bikini line or your career or your social life then yes, yes I am

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.193  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.183    one month ago

Yet that is exactly what you expect men who do not want to be father's to do. Why do you want to treat men different then women?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.194  devangelical  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.143    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.195  arkpdx  replied to  devangelical @1.1.194    one month ago

It's like trying to get the truth into your head. [deleted]

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.196  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.193    one month ago

Who is doing the work?

Men do not have to carry around and internally feed what amounts to a parasite and then  painfully eject it out through their most sensitive part and put up with the changes it does to their body.  

Career, bikini line and figure and timing and convenience, are important and her choice.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.197  sandy-2021492  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.196    one month ago

There are also legitimate risks to women's health from being pregnant.  High blood pressure, blood clots, decreased ability to fight infections, strain on the heart and kidneys, nutritional deficiencies...

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
1.1.198  Veronica  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.197    one month ago

Some people just do not care what happens to women - take a good look at Herschel Walker & his comments about women and abortions.

As the Supreme Court announced it will overturn Roe v. Wade and the protections it provided women to make their own health care decisions, Herschel Walker made it clear that he supports taking away a woman’s right to make her own medical choices, saying there’s “ no exception in [his] mind ,” even in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life.

AND there are plenty of them out there JUST like him.  Oh, but that's right - his domestic violence is ok now cuz therapy "fixed" him.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.199  sandy-2021492  replied to  Veronica @1.1.198    one month ago

They do not.  Health for women is reduced to "convenience".

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
1.1.200  Veronica  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.199    one month ago
Health for women is reduced to "convenience".

Being pregnant was wonderful for me - in the two pregnancies I brought to term, but damn it was NEVER convenient.  

They yammer about BC as if women get pregnant on their own - they yammer on about how men have to pay for children as if women do not & only men support their children... I could go on for days.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Sophomore Participates
1.1.201  cobaltblue  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.115    one month ago
A man has no such choice. 

Absurd. Condoms. Heard of them?

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Sophomore Participates
1.1.202  cobaltblue  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.132    one month ago
straight from the incel handbook

Wish I could vote that up more than once.

I'm still confused. Wasn't this the party of "it's my choice to wear a mask or not during the pandemic. It's my body, it's my choice." What the fuck?!?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.203  arkpdx  replied to  cobaltblue @1.1.201    one month ago

Ever heard of birth control pills or IUDs? There is no need to kill a health developing baby 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.2  Ronin2  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    one month ago
Moscow Mitch violated the Constitution by not permitting a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland (Obama's nominee to SCOTUS).  He claimed it was too close to the election to have the hearing.  The election was ten months away.

Prove it.

As for Garland. The justice system dodged a bullet by that partisan human piece of shit not being on the Supreme Court. Looking forward to Garland being put through impeachment proceedings if the Republicans retake the House and Senate- even it they can't fully impeach and remove him.  He has turned the DOJ into a Democrat tool to pay back political opponents and created a two tier justice system that is the envy of third world dictators everywhere.

McConnell will be happy to get rid of the filibuster so the Republicans can accomplish that goal. 

So it is only good if Democrats want to remove the filibuster to accomplish their BS goals of trying to stay in power by changing voting laws?

Remind us all who went nuclear first on getting judicial nominees seated?

Democrats are full of faux outrage and projection. When it comes to violating the Constitution and Senate procedures, Republicans willingly follow where ever Democrats lead.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.2.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2    one month ago

what world do you dwell within...

 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.2  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @1.2    one month ago

NT you do not have the time for pursuing a TRAIL OF GARBAGE and those who 'drive' it around.

 
 
 
MalamuteMan
Professor Participates
1.2.3  author  MalamuteMan  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2    one month ago
Prove it.

I am a flaming liberal... In my opinion, McConnell did not "violate the Constitution." He did however, abandon all pretense of ethics. In 2009 (13 years ago), on Newsvine, I wrote an article titled, "Is this the beginning of the second American Civil War?" I may have actually republished that article here on NT at some point. In any event, the state of American politics today makes it clear... This IS civil war!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.4  CB   replied to  MalamuteMan @1.2.3    one month ago

Certainly is political warfare. Republicans and conservatives are politically trying to takeover the political 'theater.  And, the democrats are still setting up a round table.

Clarence Thomas is feeling his 'oats' finally that justice is talking "all the time now" he is in his element; he has found his voice; "elder justice" is almost his to wield. And what does he do- he warns liberals that he and his cohorts conservatives are going to take back every damn decision liberals strained through SCOTUS' 'teeth.' One by one so conservative states: "Bring on the cases!"

SCOTUS IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS conservative-style!!!

Democrats and Independents keep talking and only talking at your peril.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
1.2.5  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2    one month ago
Prove it.

In the process specified below, Moscow Mitch short-circuited it on step #3.  He refused to hold the required hearing.

Supreme Court Nominations Research Guide

Article II section 2 of the Constitution states that the Presidents "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..." U.S. Const. art. 2 § 2, cl. 2.


    1. The President usually will consult with Senators before announcing a nomination.

    2. When the President nominates a candidate, the nomination is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.

    3. The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nominee. The Committee usually takes a month to collect and receive all necessary records, from the FBI and other sources, about the nominee and for the nominee to be prepared for the hearings.

    4. During the hearings, witnesses, both supporting and opposing the nomination, present their views. Senators question the nominee on his or her qualifications, judgment, and philosophy.

    5. The Judiciary Committee then votes on the nomination and sends its recommendation (that it be confirmed, that it be rejected, or with no recommendation) to the full Senate.

    6. The full Senate debates the nomination.

    7. The Senate rules used to allow unlimited debate (a practice known as filibustering) and to end the debate, it required the votes of 3/5 of the Senate or 60 senators (known as the cloture vote).  In April 2017, the Senate changed this rule and lowered the required votes to 51 to end debate on Supreme Court nominations (this is commonly known as "the nuclear option ").

    8. When the debate ends, the Senate votes on the nomination. A simple majority of the Senators present and voting is required for the judicial nominee to be confirmed. If there is a tie, the Vice President who also presides over the Senate casts the deciding vote.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2.5    one month ago

 He Refused To Hold The Required Hearing.

So what? The Constitution doesn't require a hearing. Confirmation hearings are a relatively new development.  They've only been held for less than a hundred years. It's completely up to the Senate how they handle a nomination.  They can vote on it the second they receive it or never vote at all.  Constitutional either way.   Just because they've generally followed a similar process the last few  decades doesn't mean the Senate has some sort of Constitutional duty to do it that way. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.7  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.6    one month ago

It is that kind of creative thinking that stabs people in the back though. It's like supreme court nominees who come to the forefront hiding their convictions just to screw over people in a divided society which relies on them to help keep the peace.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.8  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.6    one month ago

Constitutional? I don't see where that is written in the constitution...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.9  Ender  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2    one month ago
that partisan human piece of shit not being on the Supreme Court

That is comical, considering what we have now....

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.2.10  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.6    one month ago
Just because they've generally followed a similar process the last few  decades doesn't mean the Senate has some sort of Constitutional duty to do it that way.

Yea, cause who would want our elected representatives to show any respect to bipartisan agreements that might bear some semblance of moral and ethical agreed upon behaviors, especially, when you have a PIGZ, propped up by agenda driven agendas, to pursue control over what was proposed, as a FREE COUNTRY for any and all. What are your thoughts on such ?  An alarming number of ignorant peep holes, showed USA ll, what is inside. Some voted just for and to show them damn liberal elite types, it certainly would 'show them' if we selected and elected straight out Bald Faced LIARS, who, as jurors who get to Judge, and decide, for so many, those who would decide so much for so many.

Besides, why wouldn't we want LIARS placed on the Supreme Court of the land. One of the first images one thinks of when picturing and placing a judge to a Higher Court of Law, wasn't suppose to be that of a one or two Quart appointed for life Liter of nonsensical with evidence immencible, if only it could be found, cause indispensable, was supposed to the TRUTH, but hey, i only LIE, when sitting up in bed, room to think, of bigger things, obtained, via smaller minds, that cause me to.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.2.11  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.6    one month ago
Just because they've generally followed a similar process the last few  decades doesn't mean the Senate has some sort of Constitutional duty to do it that way. 

So ethics be damned, got it.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2.12  Ender  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.11    one month ago

Did they ever have any?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.2.13  igknorantzrulz  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.11    one month ago

Win, at any and all cost, irregardless of the destruction left in the wake

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @1.2.8    one month ago
Constitutional? I don't see where that is written in the constitution...

You should probably ask the person claiming the Constitution cares whether the Senate holds a hearing or not.  

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
1.2.15  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  MalamuteMan @1.2.3    one month ago

Violence begets violence. That’s not a good strategy.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.2.16  Jack_TX  replied to  MalamuteMan @1.2.3    one month ago
I am a flaming liberal...

Clearly.  But thank you for acknowledging it.

In my opinion, McConnell did not "violate the Constitution." He did however, abandon all pretense of ethics. In 2009 (13 years ago), on Newsvine, I wrote an article titled, "Is this the beginning of the second American Civil War?" I may have actually republished that article here on NT at some point. In any event, the state of American politics today makes it clear... This IS civil war!

Dude, the melodrama here is off the charts.  Civil war?  WTF?

This whole seed is an awful lot of crazy over shit not going the way you want it to.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.2.17  bugsy  replied to  Ender @1.2.8    one month ago

Don't see abortion written in the Constitution, either.

What's your point?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
1.2.18  al Jizzerror  replied to  bugsy @1.2.17    one month ago
Don't see abortion written in the Constitution, either.

The word "woman" doesn't appear in the original text.

Butt, of course, slavery is endorsed in the Constitution.  That's only one reason why the Constitution had to be amended. 

We need to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, a Voting Rights Amendment, An Abortion Amendment, and an Election Amendment (to get rid of the Electoral College and get rid of the stupid Citizens United decision).

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.19  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.2.1    one month ago

One of projection, deflection, and denial

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.2.20  bugsy  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2.18    one month ago

Everyone has equal rights, no exception and no amendment needed.

Everyone that is a US citizen has a right to vote. No exceptions.

Only the left wants to get rid of the EC because it does not fit their want for absolute power/

So there, no need for 2 of you wanted amendments and the third would never go through because most Americans believe in the current way of voting, which was meant for a reason.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3  arkpdx  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    one month ago

First, there is no time limit either way of when or how to hold nominating hearings  

Second it was "LET'S GO BRANDON" Joe Biden that came up with not having a judicial nomination too close to an election in 1992

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
1.3.1  al Jizzerror  replied to  arkpdx @1.3    one month ago
there is no time limit either way of when or how to hold nominating hearings 

Moscow Mitch pretended that Obama's nomination (Merrick Garland) was too close to the election which was ten months away.  He refused to have a hearing for Merrick Garland, which was his Constitutional duty to perform.  Later McConnell held a hearing for Amy Barrett two weeks before the 2020 election.

In 1992 Joe Biden objected to a Bush nominee DURING the required confirmation hearing in the judiciary committee.  That is the purpose of the confirmation hearing.  Any Senator can voice their objections.  Then the judiciary committee votes on whether to send the nomination to the full Senate (or not).

Joe Biden performed his Constitutional duty.  McConnell refused to perform his Constitutional duty. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.3.1    one month ago
He refused to have a hearing for Merrick Garland, which was his Constitutional duty to perform.

You keep saying things that aren't true. 

but please, go ahead and explain how the Senate  violated the Constitution for 130 odd years by not holding judicial  confirmation hearings. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
1.3.3  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.2    one month ago
 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.4  arkpdx  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.3.1    one month ago
In 1992 Joe Biden objected to a Bush nominee DURING the required confirmation hearing in the judiciary committee.

Oops! You better check your history. Bush did not nominate anyone for the Supreme Court in 1992. What part of the Constitutional duty did he perform?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
1.3.6  al Jizzerror  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.4    one month ago
it was "LET'S GO BRANDON" Joe Biden that came up with not having a judicial nomination too close to an election in 1992

Yeah, I should have checked out YOUR comment (@1.3) when you posted the statement above.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.7  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.3    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.8  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.7    one month ago

That is the nicest thing I can think of to to say about the most incompetent fool ever to occupy the white house. 

[deleted

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.3.9  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.8    one month ago

original

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.10  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.3.9    one month ago

You seem very familiar with what Putin wants. Got a Russian hotline?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.11  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.8    one month ago
That is the nicest thing I can think of to to say about the most incompetent fool ever to occupy the white house

Extreme comments like that simply discredit the author.   Your comment is a credibility destroyer much like 'Trump was the greatest PotUS'.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.12  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @1.3.9    one month ago

Other than you, who else cares? I don't!

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.13  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.11    one month ago

I never said Trump was the best president ever. That honor still belongs to President Reagan. I have said that Trump was a better president than the current one and that is indisputable. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
1.3.14  al Jizzerror  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.13    one month ago
President Reagan.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.15  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.11    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.16  arkpdx  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.3.14    one month ago

Yes President Reagan! There have been none better. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.17  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.13    one month ago

I gave an example;  I did not suggest that you stated those words.   I illustrated why the words you did state are credibility killers.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.18  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.12    one month ago

You have no credibility whatsoever.

Nothing but ignorance and insults.

Like this one:

"Have you been to one?

Oops I forgot who I was replying to. Of course you have never been to one or a abortionists office. No sane man would ever come close enough to you to get you pregnant. Personally I would let it dry up and fall off instead."

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.19  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.15    one month ago

I am not the only person reading your extreme claims.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.20  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.17    one month ago

No but you did say that the absolutely, indisputable statement I made about Biden negated my credibility. I find your response does just the opposite. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.21  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.18    one month ago

That was an absolutely, indisputable statement also. Truth hurts don't it

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.22  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.18    one month ago
You have no credibility whatsoever.

Coming from you that is just another badge of honor to add to my collection. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.23  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.19    one month ago

So? Do you expect me to change my views because you [deleted] My views are accurate and the truth and I will not change them for you or anybody

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.24  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.23    one month ago

I expect you to continue to make ridiculous posts.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.25  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.24    one month ago

My comments are factual . Do you consider all of the truth to be ridiculous?

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
1.3.26  Hallux  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.25    one month ago
My comments are factual .

All of your comments lack the integral ingredient known as disinterest to judge.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.3.27  Split Personality  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.16    one month ago
Yes President Reagan! There have been none better.

Your truth is very, very highly flawed.

While Reagan enjoyed a modest "peacetime" economy

he raised taxes quite a bit.

He also started the trend on tripling the National debt and trade deficits.

Oh remember that complicated scheme, guns for drugs, profits to the revolutionaries?

Iran - Contra? He supplied weapons to our enemies and ignored atrocities by Sadam Hussein.

Reagan settled with the Iranian terrorists.

Then after the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon were bombed

he caved to the terrorists again. Withdrew, never followed up by hunting down the perps.

He won the Cold War and caused the MIC to shrink radically,

raising unemployment.

He illegally supplied weapons to Nicaragua violating a law he himself had signed.

He supplied and supported the Contras attempts to overthrow a democratically elected government with the intention of restoring the previous dictator. 

He invaded Grenada as a diversion.

He basically fathered Al-Quaeda.

He supported Apartheid in South Africa.

The corruption of his Administration, Edwin Meese, James Watt and a dozen others

The same shit you accuse Biden of, dementia and repeating bald faced lies already known to be untrue.

Collapse of the savings and Loan industry

Good golly, should I go on?

This is tiring.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.28  arkpdx  replied to  Split Personality @1.3.27    one month ago

He is still better than the others. Who would you say is better? Certainly not Biden, Obama or Clinton. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.3.29  Split Personality  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.28    one month ago
He is still better than the others.

That is nothing but your opinion.

Who would you say is better? Certainly not Biden, Obama or Clinton. 

Why limit yourself to those?

Why exclude Washington, Lincoln or FDR?

Jefferson, Monroe, Jackson or Tyler?

People are tribal, they tend to remember the best about their chosen idols

and ignore the rest.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.30  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @1.3.27    one month ago
e Reagan enjoyed a modest "peacetime" economy

LOl.

he raised taxes quite a bit

Lol. So taxes were higher than when he was sworn in?

raising unemployment.

Lol. 

He basically fathered Al-Quaeda.

Loony tunes.

This is tiring

It sure is... Why post such partisan nonsense? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.31  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @1.3.29    one month ago
hat is nothing but your opinion.

Lol.  And your partisan hot takes are what, exactly? 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.32  arkpdx  replied to  Split Personality @1.3.29    one month ago

You still didn't answer. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
1.3.33  al Jizzerror  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.16    one month ago
Yes President Reagan! There have been none better. 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Sophomore Participates
1.3.34  cobaltblue  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.16    one month ago
There have been none better

You mean Nancy was the best president according to you.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Sophomore Participates
1.3.35  cobaltblue  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.19    one month ago
I am not the only person reading your extreme claims

That's my favorite part!! I've laughed so hard at some people's ridiculousness that I've actually pulled out my laptop and read those comments to dinner guests. Hilarity ensues. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.36  TᵢG  replied to  cobaltblue @1.3.35    one month ago

It is funny (in a pathetic sense) but I am past that point and am simply disgusted at the blind partisan nonsense nowadays.   Observing some (many) defend Trump at every turn is surreal.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Sophomore Participates
1.3.37  cobaltblue  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.36    one month ago
Observing some (many) defend Trump at every turn is surreal.

I thoroughly agree. It's amazing to me. They've sold their souls rather than admit their president is a lying traitorous grifter. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.38  TᵢG  replied to  cobaltblue @1.3.37    one month ago
... sold their souls ...

Apt description.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.39  arkpdx  replied to  cobaltblue @1.3.34    one month ago

Nancy wasn't president. The best first lady wá Barbara Bush

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2  sandy-2021492    one month ago

It's not just laziness.  Getting Democrats to unify politically is like herding cats.  When Trump was in office, if he made a blunder, which was pretty damned often, Republicans would rally to his defense - he didn't say that, or he didn't mean it, or this is how even though it SEEMS like he said something really stupid, it was really smart, instead, and we should respect POTUS.  Dissent from a Republican was rare.  It's becoming more common, now that he's out of office, but there is still a substantial faction of the GOP who will defend him, no matter what.

With Biden in office, if there's any criticism thrown toward him, even over things he can't control, Dems don't come to his defense, and some even jump on the bashing bandwagon.  Dems eat their own.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
2.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2    one month ago

Absolutely, democrat political figures need to keep the piglets mouth full of teats, if they can't, the piglets will cut their throat quicker than a New Orleans pimp...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1    one month ago

To whom, exactly, are you referring as "piglets"?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
2.1.2  Nowhere Man  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.1    one month ago
To whom, exactly, are you referring as "piglets"?

Liberal special interest groups...

Conservatives have theirs as well... (remembering Abraham Lincoln's admonishments about the "political piglets and insufficient governmental teats" once he was elected)

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1.2    one month ago

Ah, you mean those who would likely be best served by Democrats being elected?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
2.1.4  Nowhere Man  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.3    one month ago

Or Republicans on the other hand... We must remember the political environment is special interest driven in today's world...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1    one month ago

What an ignorant thing to say.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2    one month ago
With Biden in office, if there's any criticism thrown toward him, even over things he can't control, Dems don't come to his defense, and some even jump on the bashing bandwagon.  Dems eat their own.

That sounds like it might be a real problem for Democrats then.

I see what you mean, though, from looking at the polls lately, even the Democrats think we are headed in the wrong direction.

 
 
 
MalamuteMan
Professor Participates
2.2.1  author  MalamuteMan  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2    one month ago
...the Democrats think we are headed in the wrong direction.

That may qualify as the understatement of the year.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.2.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2    one month ago

And even Democrats can be mistaken about who's responsible for that.  Some hold Biden responsible for inflation, gas prices, and supply chain issues.  The party has a messaging problem.  When such false accusations are made, instead of educating, they're silent.

Meanwhile, Republicans rally around Trump when he "corrects" the path of a hurricane with a Sharpie.

One is not like the other.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.2    one month ago
And even Democrats can be mistaken about who's responsible for that.  Some hold Biden responsible for inflation, gas prices, and supply chain issues.

All sitting Presidents get credit or blame for the economy. I am not saying it is their fault, I am saying what the reality is.

The party has a messaging problem.  When such false accusations are made, instead of educating, they're silent.

Everyone seems to think that the Democrats have a 'messaging' problem. That is because many voters tend to think Democrats are out of touch. 

Meanwhile, Republicans rally around Trump when he "corrects" the path of a hurricane with a Sharpie.

Well, Trump isn't in office. Perhaps it would serve Democrats better to focus on something else for a minute.

One is not like the other.

That is true, and the main reason I never claimed they were the same.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.2    one month ago
One is not like the other.

one is too lazy

and

one, is becoming a cult classic

 
 
 
MalamuteMan
Professor Participates
2.2.5  author  MalamuteMan  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.2    one month ago
One is not like the other.

INDEED!!!! Hoo boy! That one elicited a good laugh!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.2.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.3    one month ago
I am not saying it is their fault, I am saying what the reality is.

I'm aware of the reality.  I'm also aware that there can and should be much more education regarding how this actually works.

That is because many voters tend to think Democrats are out of touch. 

Possibly, although this is also a messaging problem.  Dems don't push back hard enough against lies told about them.  "Grooming" children, insistence that the DNC wants to open borders to all, Dems being easy on crime, etc.  I remember Virginia's former governor being accused of supporting killing babies, when he didn't say anything of the sort - and it was just sort of a blip, and used to support more lies about Dems.

Well, Trump isn't in office. Perhaps it would serve Democrats better to focus on something else for a minute.

Ok, so I'm comparing the relative support each has received from his party.  You do get that, right?  Trump received party support no matter how abysmal his performance, and Biden, well, doesn't.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.2.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.2    one month ago
Some hold Biden responsible for inflation, gas prices, and supply chain issues. 

Maybe, do you think, it's because Democrats believed their leaders when they attack Republican Presidents for those issues and spent 20 years crediting Bill Clinton for the 90s economy?  

For instance, in 2018 Chuck Schumer blamed Trump for high gas prices.  Did you, loyal Democrat, attack him for lying and misleading voters or rally around him? 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.8  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.6    one month ago

Talk is wasted. Can't you see that, dear Sandy? These people will talk "us" to death and eat our supplies while doing so.  "Nose to the grinder."

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.6    one month ago
I'm also aware that there can and should be much more education regarding how this actually works.

Seems like it only became an issue when Biden took office.

Do you have such a low opinion of the electorate that you don't think they know what they are doing?

Possibly, although this is also a messaging problem.  Dems don't push back hard enough against lies told about them.  "

Messaging problem? You think that the real problem is messaging, and not Democratic actions and policies? It is just that kind of thinking that led Democrats to their 'messaging' problem. 

and Biden, well, doesn't.

Maybe, because as polls show, even Democrats think we are headed in the wrong direction.

That sounds like you all should have voted for someone else.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2.10  igknorantzrulz  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.6    one month ago
Trump received party support no matter how abysmal his performance, and Biden, well, doesn't.

not sure abysmal, can quite cover the magnitude of what the GOP did attempt to cover

up

for the 

cover ups, over their heads, sometimes weren't always covers, 

covering up their heads were freshly bleached, sheets, N whited out meanly tweets, from small hands in with heavy pants on fire,  that a tempted to pull the triggered, and the weak minded  daily

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.2.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.7    one month ago

I am not a loyal Democrat.

I only blame Presidents for economic problems when they engage in actions that lead to the same.  Reagan's tax cuts, for example, and George W. Bush leading us into 2 wars while simultaneously cutting taxes so that those wars were not funded.

I disagreed with Clinton regarding NAFTA.

Trump didn't control OPEC.

Neither does Biden.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.2.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.9    one month ago
Seems like it only became an issue when Biden took office.

Why?

Do you have such a low opinion of the electorate that you don't think they know what they are doing?

I think that a large number of people are easily led, and don't engage in research or critical thinking.

Democratic actions and policies?

Tell me, which Democratic policies do you have a problem with?  Actual Democratic policies, not things somebody told you were Democratic policies, but aren't.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2.13  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.9    one month ago
Seems like it only became an issue when Biden took office. Do you have such a low opinion of the electorate that you don't think they know what they are doing?

You're funny Tex. You were one always explaining what Trump really said, and or, never meant, cause Trump Defenders, apparently have not a depth too deep, to dive

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.2.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.11    one month ago
I am not a loyal Democrat

Followed by:

for economic problems when they engage in actions that lead to the same.  Reagan's tax cuts, for example, 

Lol. Okay. The economic boom years of the 80s sure were horrible.  All that economic growth was devastating.

George W. Bush leading us into 2 wars while simultaneously cutting taxes so that those wars were not funded.

But Joe Biden unfunded spending doesn't cause any problems.

Sure.   

 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.13    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.2.16  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.14    one month ago

You ignored

I disagreed with Clinton regarding NAFTA.
Trump didn't control OPEC.

Why is that, Sean?

Economic boom?  Well, that's a bit of a mixed bag, isn't it?

The Bottom Line

Reaganomics was regarded as a common-sense approach to the perception of stagflation and over-regulation that prevailed at the end of the Carter presidency. By reducing government spending and taxes, and making it easier to do business, President Reagan hoped to incentivize economic activity and reduce dependence on the welfare state.

These policies were rewarded by reduced inflation, increased employment, and an entrepreneurial revolution that later became synonymous with the 1980s. However, some of the promises of Reaganomics did not materialize. Federal deficits grew, and the increased wealth gap left the poorest Americans in worse shape.
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.12    one month ago
Why?

Because he is a Democrat!

think that a large number of people are easily led, and don't engage in research or critical thinking.

Didn't seem to be a problem for Democrats when they win.

Tell me, which Democratic policies do you have a problem with?  Actual Democratic policies, not things somebody told you were Democratic policies, but aren't.

Tax more, amnesty for illegals, lax border control.

Whether these are official or not, they are real.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.2.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.17    one month ago
Because he is a Democrat!

That answer makes no sense.

Didn't seem to be a problem for Democrats when they win.

It is when they display "buyer's remorse" and blame their candidates for issues not under their control.

Tax more, amnesty for illegals, lax border control. Whether these are official or not, they are real.

So, not actual policies, then.  Noted.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.18    one month ago

My answer makes sense if one isn't blind to reality.

Still blaming voters for their personal views and votes. How very Hillary of you.

Democrats actions and lack of actions is what is real, not some talking points about what some Dens want to do.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.2.20  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.19    one month ago
My answer makes sense if one isn't blind to reality.

Vague support for a nonsensical answer.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.2.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.16    one month ago
I disagreed with Clinton regarding NAFTA.

So what? You think one substantive disagreement with Democrats in 30 years makes a point? 

onomic boom?  Well, that's a bit of a mixed bag, isn't it?

If your standard is it "failed to create Utopia," sure. Everything can be called   a "mixed bag."   But you chose an economic boom as an example of "economic problem" caused by a Republican President, which is exactly what the most hardcore of partisans would say. 

You basically are arguing that its ignorant to blame Presidents for controlling the economy, unless they are Republicans who are of course to blame for bad things. And even if those bad things are objectively good, we have to call them bad because it involves a Republican.

If you applied the same standard to Biden that you do to Reagan and Bush, then you must blame Biden for the economy under his watch.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.20    one month ago

My answer made sense. It is a problem for you if you don't understand

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.2.23  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.21    one month ago
So what? You think one substantive disagreement with Democrats in 30 years makes a point? 

You're still ignoring this:

Trump didn't control OPEC.

Why is that, Sean?  Also, was your list of questions comprehensive enough to cover all points on which I might disagree with Democrats?  I rather doubt it.

If your standard is it "failed to create Utopia," sure.

Straw man.

But you chose an economic boom as an example of "economic problem" caused by a Republican President, which is exactly what the most hardcore of partisans would say.

From my link:

Others are less favorable. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman downplayed the success of Reagan's policies. "Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession," Krugman wrote in the New York Times . "But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before and the poverty rate had actually risen." In addition, many of the consequences of the Reagan era would not be truly understood until the end of the Reagan presidency. For example, the deregulation of the financial services industry would play a major part in the Savings and Loan crisis , as well as the financial collapse of 2008 .

So, we had a short-lived boom, at what cost?

If you applied the same standard to Biden that you do to Reagan and Bush, then you must blame Biden for the economy under his watch.

You'll notice that Reagan and Bush actually controlled those policies - the tax cuts were theirs, the war in Iraq was Bush's, based on lies from his administration.

Trump was not in control of oil prices, nor could he have prevented the pandemic (although he damned well could have managed it better).  Same as Biden is not in control of oil prices now.  Neither Trump nor Biden is responsible for supply chain issues that are a result of the pandemic.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.2.24  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.23    one month ago

Amazes me people still believe trickle down works...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.2.25  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @2.2.24    one month ago

It works for the people those people care about.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.26  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.13    one month ago
You were one always explaining what Trump really said, and or, never meant, cause Trump Defenders, apparently have not a depth too deep, to dive

It is always hilarious when people say I do things I don't.

And guess what?

All I have to do is ask you to quote me and POOF! you vanish or deflect!

Quote me!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2.27  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ender @2.2.24    one month ago

How is it, that Republicans, with the track record that has PROVEN IT DOES NOT WORK, get so many sheeple to gather the herd and tell them watt was or wasn't said, or even overheard by the herd , mentality absurd, yet still always observed, as their asses perpetuate the though even though it isn't good for me, and i'll vote against my best interests, because i am a small minded entitled and deserved, of all the woe i continually forego, so as the richest amongst US, can further enrich and empower themselves, and i'll even defend them for blatantly LYING to me and you, as they rob from the poorer to enrich the richer, and even though you can pour dry ice from a pitcher, it don't matter, to those who thirst for the rich to get richer, while the back of a throat, is left, to be sliced, and not quenched, can leave US in a pickle, slowly dying, as they await that trickle     down my leg economix theory to produce, more than pissed off people 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2.28  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.26    one month ago

wow Tex, are stating you've NEVER defended or explained what Trump, or others on the 'right' have said or actually meant, when they blurted out or actioned, something that got them in, over their head???

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.29  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.28    one month ago
wow Tex, are stating you've NEVER defended or explained what Trump, or others on the 'right' have said or actually meant, when they blurted out or actioned, something that got them in, over their head???

Please take a moment to read my comment.

You seem to have misunderstood it.

Where is the quote to support your claim?

POOF!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2.30  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.29    one month ago

Poof! ?   There it is

i think the posters can figure out how you attempt to wiggle

fingers in the eyes crossed so you can't see where i'm going with this Tex...?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.31  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.30    one month ago
Poof! ?   There it is i think the posters can figure out how you attempt to wiggle

You made a claim, I asked you to support it, and you failed.

Like I stated--you either vanish or deflect.

This is you deflecting.

Just supply the quote you are so confident you can find easily.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2.32  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.31    one month ago
Just supply the quote you are so confident you can find easily.

so, for the record, you are stating you've never defended the actions of the Republican GOP party ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.33  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.32    one month ago

Supply the quote for your claim or just run along now.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2.34  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.33    one month ago

i like run along sentences to pace myself with the incongruent lines i can never remember to look up things, not remembered, because i may have forgot    to remember them, but if you remember to never forget to remember, haven't you forgotten the forgotten or dismembered the memory not remembered because you didn't forget to forget and forgive me Tex, but i will provide you with my thoughts of your consistent and persistent impression you impact with those typed words voiced to promote a particular ideology that i won't prescribe to, without a Dr's note:  You can make a much bigger and deeper impression, on softer grounds

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
2.2.35  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.2    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.2.36  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.11    one month ago

Amen sister.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.37  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.34    one month ago

word salad does not erase the fact you claimed something you can't back up.

when people continually do that to me, and try to deflect, i lose interest in most of what they have to say.

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
2.2.38  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  Lucifer Morningstar @2.2.35    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.39  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.6    one month ago
Possibly, although this is also a messaging problem.  Dems don't push back hard enough against lies told about them. 

Gee, who is responsible for messaging?

Dems are seen as out of touch because of their actual words and deeds, not some lies.

Take the use of the word "Latinx". Latinos largely disfavor the term, but idiots like AOC insist on using it. Tone deaf to the very people she claims to want to help and represent.

"Defund the police" was the rage and now even Democrats have slowly, begrudgingly recognized that dismal failure.

Insistence the border is closed while record numbers come across, many illegally. About a million aliens released into the US so far by Biden's team of experts.

"Inflation is temporary" rhetoric from the WH is for damn sure a 'messaging problem' but one that was self-inflicted.

Trump received party support no matter how abysmal his performance, and Biden, well, doesn't.

I guess we should all applaud those Democrats who can recognize what a disaster Biden is and his Administration is.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.2.40  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.39    one month ago
"Defund the police" was the rage and now even Democrats have slowly, begrudgingly recognized that dismal failure.

"Defund the police" is a messaging problem.  Most people agree with what "defund the police" means in most places, which is using diverting law enforcement funding to mental health/social workers in order to handle those who are mentally ill rather than intentionally criminal.  The slogan is stupid as hell, but the concept is not.

Insistence the border is closed

Which is not something I've heard many Dems say.

Gee, who is responsible for messaging?

Dems.  You DO realize I've been offering a criticism of Democrats here, yes?  I mean, most people seemed to get it right from the first comment.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
2.2.41  al Jizzerror  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.40    one month ago

Which Democrats have advocated "defunding the police" or "open borders"?

Joe Biden certainly opposed both concepts.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.42  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.40    one month ago
"Defund the police" is a messaging problem. 

So why do Democrats continue to shoot themselves in the feet with silly slogans?

And why have so many Democratic-run cities adding money back into their police budgets?

Which is not something I've heard many Dems say.
  1. ...

    7 hours ago · White House insists ‘ border   is closed’ after 50 migrants found dead in truck. The   Biden   administration declined to directly respond Tuesday to Texas Republican Gov. …

    May not be many, but when the leader of your party says it, it should count for something.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.2.43  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.42    one month ago

Texan, you and Abbott DO realize that if open borders were a policy, nobody would need to sneak in, yes?

I disagree that the border is closed, but that's because an airtight border is pretty near impossible.

Many of your words illustrate my point - Dems are less politically monolithic than Republicans.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.44  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.43    one month ago
Texan, you and Abbott DO realize that if open borders were a policy, nobody would need to sneak in, yes?

Stick with me, I don't speak for Abbott.

The border may not technically be wide open, but the numbers coming across are definitely increasing no matter what source you use to verify it. The HUGE numbers of aliens released into the interior also says that the border is not secure--get here and stay here seems to be the underlying message coming from the Biden Administration.

The Biden Administration and VP Harris have made a bigger mess of things on the border.

Many of your words illustrate my point - Dems are less politically monolithic than Republicans.

While many Democrats hide behind trifling technicalities to hide their own ineptness and denials.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
2.2.45  arkpdx  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2.41    one month ago
Joe Biden certainly opposed both concepts. 

Your kidding right? Have you even seen the news about the border?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.2.47  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.44    one month ago
Stick with me, I don't speak for Abbott.

You posted a link to his words because you disagree with them?

Ok.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.48  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.47    one month ago
You posted a link to his words because you disagree with them?

You would do well to note the article ALSO says that Biden said the border is closed. You know, to show you that YES, Democrats ARE claiming the border is closed despite you not hearing of such things.

Surely the weight of the words emanating from the POTUS carries a tad more weight than if a lesser Democrat uttered them?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.2.49  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.48    one month ago
You would do well to note the article ALSO says that Biden said the border is closed.

You would do well to read what I typed.

Which is not something I've heard many Dems say. (Bolding mine).

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.50  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.49    one month ago

I do believe the LEADER of the Democratic Party saying it is worth at least a million Democrats saying it.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.2.51  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.50    one month ago

Spin away, Texan.

"One" does not equal "many".

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.52  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.51    one month ago

Seems like you are implying the words of your President don't mean much.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.2.53  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.52    one month ago

I'm saying I know English.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.2.54  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.42    one month ago

Biden of course, invited illegals to surge the border.

He promised free health care.

He promised to stop deportations.

He done everything he can to ensure to lure aliens to sneak across the across the border, promising to reward them with benefits, safety from deportation  and am eventual  amnesty. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.55  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.53    one month ago
I'm saying I know English.

Super!

Then you will be able to tell immediately I didn't say you said that, but implied it, and you know the difference!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.56  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.54    one month ago

That is true, but not everyone can see it.

Record numbers and some still like to pretend Biden is tough on border security!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.2.57  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.55    one month ago

Have you figured out yet whether "one" is "many"?

Or are you still just arguing to argue?