╌>

Ohio Gov. John Kasich signs down syndrome abortion ban

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  gordy327  •  7 years ago  •  555 comments

Ohio Gov. John Kasich signs down syndrome abortion ban

From NBCNEWS :

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio is prohibiting doctors from performing abortions based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome, joining other states with similarly strict legislation.

Republican Gov. John Kasich signed the legislation into law on Friday. Lawmakers had sent the bill to him earlier this month, in one of their last acts of the year. The legislation, which cleared the GOP-led Legislature with some Republican opposition, makes it a crime for a doctor to terminate a pregnancy based on knowledge of Down syndrome, a genetic abnormality that causes developmental delays and medical conditions such as heart defects and respiratory and hearing problems. It makes performing an abortion in such cases a fourth-degree felony and requires the state medical board to revoke the physician's license if convicted. Pregnant women involved in such procedures won't be penalized.

Kasich's action was a victory for the anti-abortion group Ohio Right to Life, which argued it will prevent discrimination based on misinformation.

"Now that the Down Syndrome Non-Discrimination Act is law, unborn babies prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome are given a shot at life" the group's president, Mike Gonidakis, said in a statement Friday.

Abortion rights groups argued the law would be another blow to women's constitutional right to legal abortion. The executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, Kellie Copeland, said the law does nothing to support families taking care of loved ones with Down syndrome but instead "exploits them as part of a larger anti-choice strategy to systematically make all abortion care illegal."

"This law shames women and will have a chilling effect on the conversations between doctors and patients because of the criminal penalties that doctors will face," Copeland said.

A statement from the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio on Friday said Kasich signed a "blatantly unconstitutional bill." The civil rights group said it is coordinating with its legal staff and coalition partners to determine the next steps. North Dakota and Indiana were ahead of Ohio in passing similar restrictions. The Indiana law has been blocked by a federal judge, who said the state has no right to limit women's reasons for terminating pregnancies. The Indiana measure was enacted in 2016. North Dakota's went into effect in 2013 and has not been challenged. That state's sole abortion clinic, in Fargo, says the issue hasn't arisen under its policy of not performing abortions after 16 weeks into a pregnancy.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
1  seeder  Gordy327    7 years ago

It's not surprising Gov. Kasich signed a blatantly unconstitutional law into effect. It's only a matter of time before the legal challenges begin.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
1.1  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @1    7 years ago
It's not surprising Gov. Kasich signed a blatantly unconstitutional law into effect. It's only a matter of time before the legal challenges begin.

This religious nonsense will never survive judicial review. They don't care about the child once it is born and refuse to guarantee support services for the child and the family of Downs Syndrome babies for its life, but they want to force the mother to give birth to a child that they cannot possibly care for. What happened to the GOP opposition to unfunded mandates? 

It is obvious to most people that Kasich and the GOP are pandering to religious right voters ahead of the 2018 midterms with this nonsense.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1    7 years ago

Must kill those downs babies.  Must allow abortion to prevent the wrong gender or one with any imperfection at all from being born to a master race of those tolerated by their secular progressive parent(s).  

 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Quiet
1.2.1  lennylynx  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2    7 years ago

It's nice that you care so much about Downs babies; too bad you don't care about having a president who mocks disabled people.  kitty cat

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
1.2.2  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2    7 years ago

The GOP doesn't give a damn about these children once they are born because they refuse to provide necessary support services for them.  These are two letters to the editor from today's Akron Beacon Journal opposing this law that does nothing but to pander to the religious right ahead of the 2018 midterm. The GOP merely tried to attack Roe v. Wade by nibbling away at it, but this law will likely be struck down by the federal courts because it attacks access to abortion.

If you don't like abortion then don't have one but don't you dare try to tell others what they can do with their own medical decisions because of your religious beliefs! 

Lack of compassion

My 34-year-old son who happens to have Down syndrome has brought more love, joy and strength to our family than I would have ever dreamed possible. I would urge anyone who is considering abortion when facing this diagnosis to reconsider.

I can also tell you that Ohio House Bill 214, which bans abortion for any fetus with a diagnosis of Down syndrome and was signed last week by Gov. John Kasich, is nothing more than a warm, fuzzy, empty feel-good measure designed to pander to the holier-than-thou Republican Party base. The bill is devoid of compassion.

Instead of this worthless legislation, let’s restore funding for these most at-risk members of our society. These children need early childhood intervention, including physical and occupational therapies. Many with this diagnosis are prone to having congenital heart disease. They will need cardiac care throughout their lives. Let’s restore funding to health care for our vulnerable children. Let’s provide transportation for these appointments for the families who have none. Let’s restore funding to special education. Let’s restore funding to our state and county developmental disabilities boards. Let’s fund quality group homes for these children of aging parents.

Jim D. Martin

Akron

Special needs for a lifetime

House Bill 214 forces a woman to give birth against her will to a child with special needs that she and her family may be unable to meet, while the measure omits the infusion of funds necessary for the child care, special education and adult services that child will likely require across a lifetime.

Denise Woods

Bath

 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
1.2.3  seeder  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2    7 years ago
Must kill those downs babies.

I'm pretty sure I've said in other posts that killing babies is illegal.

Must allow abortion to prevent the wrong gender or one with any imperfection at all from being born to a master race of those tolerated by their secular progressive parent(s).

Such melodrama. Must allow abortion because abortion is a woman's right, regardless of why she might choose to abort. Her choice and reasons are her own and no one else's business.

 
 
 
magnoliaave
Sophomore Quiet
1.2.4  magnoliaave  replied to  epistte @1.2.2    7 years ago

you don't know from whence you came. 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
1.2.5  epistte  replied to  magnoliaave @1.2.4    7 years ago

I didn't come from your god, that is for certain.  I also know that morally we must care for others, especially the less fortunate and the sick.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is never easy, but that decision must be made only by the mother and not some pandering politician or a minister who claims that he is a messenger of a god.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
3  charger 383    7 years ago

Not cost effective

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4  seeder  Gordy327    7 years ago
makes it a crime for a doctor to terminate a pregnancy based on knowledge of Down syndrome, a genetic abnormality that causes developmental delays and medical conditions such as heart defects and respiratory and hearing problems. It makes performing an abortion in such cases a fourth-degree felony and requires the state medical board to revoke the physician's license if convicted.

A woman may choose to have an abortion for any reason, including medical diagnoses. Restricting that choice by law is unconstitutional.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @4    7 years ago

Should be interesting once a genetic test for homosexuality is developed. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1.1  seeder  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1    7 years ago
Should be interesting once a genetic test for homosexuality is developed

Indeed. We'll see if that is covered under the law.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.1    7 years ago

If there is  "constitutional right" to kill a baby with down's syndrome, then a "constitutional right" exists  to kill a baby in the womb for carrying homosexual genes.

I assume all of the people who support killing Down's Syndrome babies will support the right to kill homosexual babies. That's the interesting part.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1.3  seeder  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.2    7 years ago
If it's a constitutional right to kill a baby with down's syndrome, then a "constitutional right" exists to kill a baby in the womb for carrying homosexual genes.

A constitutional right exists to have an abortion for any reason the woman chooses. No babies are killed.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
4.1.4  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.2    7 years ago

If there is a "constitutional right" to kill a baby with down's syndrome, then a "constitutional right" exists to kill a baby in the womb for carrying homosexual genes.

I'm guessing that you were valedictorian in your Bucksnort, Teennessee high school graduating class.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
4.1.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.2    7 years ago
I assume all of the people who support killing Down's Syndrome babies will support the right to kill homosexual babies. That's the interesting part.

Prove that a healthy child with a 140 IQ who happens to be gay is a disability then you might have a point. As it is, only those who hate gays actually have something wrong with their idiot brains.

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
Freshman Silent
4.1.6  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.5    7 years ago
Prove that a healthy child with a 140 IQ who happens to be gay is a disability

Being gay is a mental illness, has been recognized as such since the beginning of time.  For some reason the popular idea these days is to not treat the mental illness, and play along with it, encourage it even.. generally resulting in the victims suicide.

/shrug

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1.7  seeder  Gordy327  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @4.1.6    7 years ago
Being gay is a mental illness, has been recognized as such since the beginning of time.

The APA, among other organizations, disagrees with you!

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
Freshman Silent
4.1.8  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.7    7 years ago
The APA, among other organizations, disagrees with you!

Oh, and when did they change their mind about that?  During the Obama presidency?  Well, how about that, lol!

I feel sorry for the real victims, the people with the mental problems that society has decided not to try and fix... So sad, most of them kill themselves, and the progressives laugh at them while they suffer, they encourage their suffering.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1.9  seeder  Gordy327  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @4.1.8    7 years ago
Oh, and when did they change their mind about that? During the Obama presidency? Well, how about that, lol

Wrong! Try 1973.

I feel sorry for the real victims, the people with the mental problems that society has decided not to try and fix...

As do I. but then, homosexuality is not a mental illness. So there's nothing that needs to be fixed.

So sad, most of them kill themselves, and the progressives laugh at them while they suffer, they encourage their suffering

More likely  due to ignorant bigots who think gays have a mental illness or otherwise harass, intimidate, and insult them, among other things. I'd say that can cause suffering.

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
Freshman Silent
4.1.10  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.9    7 years ago
nonheterosexuals may be at somewhat heightened risk for depression, anxiety, and related problems, compared to exclusive heterosexuals (Cochran & Mays, 2006).
 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1.11  seeder  Gordy327  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @4.1.10    7 years ago

Related to some of the reasons I mentioned.

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
Freshman Silent
4.1.12  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.11    7 years ago

related to their fucking brain not working right.

And generally the reason their brain is fucked up, is because they were raised in some fucked up family situation.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Shepboy @4.1.14    7 years ago

Not going to name names, Shepboy, but I have seen a few posts that sure seem to express hatred / disgust / etc. for homosexuals.   Well beyond homosexuality is a sin and into the OT abomination style of thinking.

And we all know, in the general public, there is quite a bit of religious-justified hatred of homosexuals.   There are good aspects to religion and there are bad.   Bigotry is one of the bad aspects.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.16  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.2    7 years ago

Well said.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1.17  seeder  Gordy327  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @4.1.12    7 years ago
And generally the reason their brain is fucked up, is because they were raised in some fucked up family situation.

You base that assumption on what, exactly? Or perhaps that effed up family situation is because the family is not accepting of a gay family member?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1.18  seeder  Gordy327  replied to  Shepboy @4.1.13    7 years ago
Its much easier to brush off death when you deny it being a baby.

It's not a baby. It's an embryo/fetus. Look it up. And regardless, it's still a woman's personal and legal choice.

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
Freshman Silent
4.1.19  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.17    7 years ago
You base that assumption on what, exactly?

All the gay people I know.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1.20  seeder  Gordy327  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @4.1.19    7 years ago

Riiiiigghhht.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
4.1.23  Skrekk  replied to  Shepboy @4.1.14    7 years ago
Who on here hates gays? I havent seen anyone express their hatred of gay people .. Who?

You're obviously one of them since you want gays to be denied some of the civil rights and familial rights you enjoy, like the rights to marry and to adopt.    You simply lie to yourself about whether your anti-gay animus constitutes hate.

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
Freshman Silent
4.1.24  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.20    7 years ago
Riiiiigghhht.

I know a few, and of that bunch, I know some of their backgrounds.

All of them that I know their backgrounds came from seriously messed up homes.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1.25  seeder  Gordy327  replied to  Shepboy @4.1.21    7 years ago

I already explained the murder issue in my previous post 2.1.1.2 above, so I won't bother repatina myself here. An embryo or fetus is a stage of gestation,  not a baby. It's not a baby until birth. As I said before, look it up. As for legal choice, that belongs to the woman. You seem to be advocating removing someone's legal choice and rights. The court has never removed a right once granted in its entire history. So your wishful thinking is not likely to happen.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1.26  seeder  Gordy327  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @4.1.24    7 years ago

Then their problems is not a direct coorellation to to sexual orientation. Their problems lies with the circumstances they're in.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
4.1.28  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Shepboy @4.1.27    7 years ago
Choice doent put people in prison.

If you steal my car without consent, it's a felony. If I choose to give you my car then it's perfectly legal. It's my car and thus my choice. So yes, "choice" can put people in prison.

A woman has the legal choice to terminate a pregnancy up until viability. The fetus has no rights until that stage of development. It's the woman's choice. If you attack her and the fetus is killed prior to viability you took away her choice and thus it's a crime, just like you stealing my car without consent. If she makes the choice to terminate the pregnancy prior to viability then it's not a crime. It's her body to do with as she wishes up until the law says otherwise which is at viability.

Thankfully, 92% of all abortions occur prior to 12 weeks which is about 12 weeks prior to viability and when the zygote is the size and shape of a kidney bean.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.29  MrFrost  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @4.1.6    7 years ago
Being gay is a mental illness

no reputable medical practitioner agree's with you. 

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
Freshman Silent
4.1.30  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.29    7 years ago
no reputable medical practitioner agree's with you.

Actually, most reputable medical practitioner agree's with me.  It's you that they laugh at.

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
Freshman Silent
4.1.31  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  Skrekk @4.1.23    7 years ago
You're obviously one of them since you want gays to be denied some of the civil rights and familial rights you enjoy, like the rights to marry and to adopt.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.  But, I kinda expect that of you.  People who are gay can, and always have been able to marry, the same as I, a straight man have been able to marry, and the same for adoption.

Where do you come up with your nonsense?

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
4.1.32  Skrekk  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @4.1.31    7 years ago
People who are gay can, and always have been able to marry, the same as I, a straight man have been able to marry, and the same for adoption.

The racists in the south made the same sort of moronic claim, that everyone had an equal right to marry someone of the same race as themselves.

No wonder in both cases the dumb bigots who made those arguments in court lost.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1.33  seeder  Gordy327  replied to  Shepboy @4.1.27    7 years ago
yes I read your explanation, but all it does it dodge the fact of what a crime is.

There is no crime in an abortion. But inflicting willful harm against a woman is a crime.

So all your concluding is that a person has or has not committed a crime based on Choice. Choice doent put people in prison. I choose to kill someone, but that is not a crime until I actually do kill someone. If a woman can choose to kill her baby and its not murder because of choice that is legal? Well our laws clearly state that for a crime to be murder, means it has to be considered a human being.

Do you have a point? Because you seem confused. A woman can't "choose" to kill her baby because it's illegal. Well, she can but then she'll end up in prison, as killing babies is illegal. But there is no baby in an abortion and abortion is legal as well as a woman's choice. A woman can either choose to have an abortion or choose to continue a pregnancy.

So what you are saying, is that a fetus is NOT a person. Because if a fetus is a person then abortion is the deliberate killing of a person. It is never lawful to kill a person according to our laws.

A fetus is not legally considered a person.

So the dilemma we have here is, a woman can decide what murder is and is not according to her power of choice. Which means she now have power of our laws.. those laws that you so infamously throw out there all the time.

Again, you are confused. Abortion is not legally defined or equated to murder. Until you understand that, the rest of your nonsense utterly falls apart.

If a person were to kill a woman with Fetus according to you.. not child.. then how can a person be charged with murder?

They should only be charged with the murder of the woman.

Gordy, only a human being qualifies for the definition of murder, not a fetus.

I agree, which is why feticide laws are absurd. Such laws are emotionally driven knee-jerk reactions to violent crimes committed against pregnant women.

I would much rather hear you stand by the view that a person can not be charged for murder if he some how aborts a woman's fetus.. even if it is unlawful.

See previous statement.

He can be charged with aggravated assault, but murder? If you stand by murder, then you must stand by that a human being was just killed, and if you say that, then you must agree that human beings have rights.

See previous statement.

You have one messed up view that looks like a maze of twisted noodles. Your entire argument is full of conflict.

Not even a little. I've been quite clear in my explanations, which have legal basis. 

Want to try again?

You first! Because your whole argument and insinuations just fell flat.

I believe I already made this statement somewhere in this bloated thread

Here is what you said, "Also an embryo / fetus is not an actual thing.. its just the stage of the cycle of a baby." And that statement is incorrect. I corrected you by stating an embryo\/fetus is a stage of gestation. 

( which btw I just seen it was way past 300 comments, my cut off limit, so this will be my last post)

I can understand why you would run, especially when your arguments get blown out of the water.

That is so funny , when i look at ultrasounds there is this thing in there that resembles a baby..

Really, because it looks more like a piece of uncooked shrimp. I can show you an ultrasound of a fetal cat, dog, pig, and human at early stages of gestation, and I bet you won't be able to tell the difference.  I can also look at clouds and see them resemble certain shapes too. So what's your point?

I guess I must be crazy, because its really a Tonka Toy Truck..

No, crazy because you think it's a baby.

No Gordy, I am supporting basic human rights to life. That Fetus is a human, its just in a one of many stages of life it goes through. 

That applies to those already born. You can't apply rights to the unborn (which have no rights) without removing rights from the already born woman.

am kind of shocked, your such a stickler for rights..

Notice how I have been advocating for women's rights?

I am quite saddened you fail the human race and the American people on this view seeing how you blindly support ripping away the rights of an innocent human being.

When you understand the unborn do not have rights, then you'll see what that statement of yours is nonsense.

Ah, but the court can grant a right to the unborn child, saying it is a basic human right to life. Also if people keep going over to the right to life view, then eventually we will have more judges pro life, and Presidents who are pro life who will put pro life judges in the courts, then it can be over turned .. Eventually people will wake up and see how barbaric of a society we are taking the lives of the helpless.

Good luck with that. People have been trying to overturn women's rights for over 40 years now.

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
Freshman Silent
4.1.34  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  Skrekk @4.1.23    7 years ago
You're obviously one of them

personal attack if I ever seen one...  And you sound kinda paranoid to boot.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
4.1.35  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @4.1.8    7 years ago
So sad, most of them kill themselves

That's one of the most ignorant statements I've seen so far on NT. First, "most" do not kill themselves. It is true that the rates of suicide attempts are about 3 times that of the general population, but it's almost exactly the same increase as those who are victims of bullying. Most gay people are in fact victims of bullying, so it has nothing to do with their sexual orientation and everything to do with being victims of bigots and bullies who malign, judge, discriminate and hate them for no other reason than for how they were born. The true vile pieces of filth are the bullies who are so insecure in their own sexuality that they have to beat up others who are different to make themselves feel better.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.36  MrFrost  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @4.1.30    7 years ago
Actually, most reputable medical practitioner agree's with me.  It's you that they laugh at.

Oh by all means, list these people? We'll wait. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.37  MrFrost  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @4.1.34    7 years ago
personal attack if I ever seen one...  And you sound kinda paranoid to boot.

Not a personal attack, just a piece of advice? You don't do passive aggressive very well. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1.38  seeder  Gordy327  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @4.1.30    7 years ago

Really? Whom? The APA and AMA, among other organizations, do not!

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.2  cjcold  replied to  Gordy327 @4    7 years ago

Shure glad I am not a girl. I will continue to fight for their rights.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.2.1  seeder  Gordy327  replied to  cjcold @4.2    7 years ago

Great. Then I'm sure you're all for women's rights, including their right to an abortion. Right?

 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Quiet
5  lennylynx    7 years ago

How about we make abortion illegal for Republican women only?  Happy

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
5.2  Cerenkov  replied to  lennylynx @5    7 years ago

Sanger would approve.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
5.2.1  epistte  replied to  Cerenkov @5.2    7 years ago
Sanger would approve.

skirting the CoC [ph] Try harder next time.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
5.2.3  Cerenkov  replied to    7 years ago

Well said.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
5.2.4  epistte  replied to    7 years ago
Seems it worked enough to touch on your nerves, else you wouldn't have felt the need to comment...

Margaret Sanger's eugenic views prohibit her from being held up as a hero to progressives. She did some good but she was also very flawed. 

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
5.2.5  Skrekk  replied to  epistte @5.2.4    7 years ago
Margaret Sanger's eugenic views prohibit her from being held up as a hero to progressives.

Her views have also been misrepresented by ignorant T-baggers and bible-babblers.    This link has a good summary of the facts in their historical context, a time when eugenics was widely supported but contraceptive devices were generally prohibited:

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
5.2.7  Skrekk  replied to    7 years ago
She was held up as a hero by progressives in her own time, who were into things like eugenics and sterilization.

Once again you've misrepresented Sanger's views since she opposed the forced sterilization advocated by the eugenics movement.

It's also curious that you're obsessed with "heroes" since Sanger's efforts to legalize contraception and to make family planning services available to all women were the things which were praised then and now.     I think uncritical hero worship is exclusively a trait of T-baggers and other conservatives, like their irrational and undeserved worship of St Ronnie Raygun.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.3  cjcold  replied to  lennylynx @5    7 years ago

And have more republicans?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
7  MrFrost    7 years ago
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio is prohibiting doctors from performing abortions based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome, joining other states with similarly strict legislation.

Then Kasich can pay to raise these kids or adopt them himself. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
7.1  charger 383  replied to  MrFrost @7    7 years ago

every one of them

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8  MrFrost    7 years ago

Where is the highest incidence of teen pregnancy? The answer is shocking.... /yawn

In 2010, New Mexico had the highest teenage pregnancy rate (80 pregnancies per 1,000 women); the next highest rates were in Mississippi (76), Texas (73), Arkansas (73), Louisiana (69) and Oklahoma (69). The lowest rates were in New Hampshire(28), Vermont (32), Minnesota (36), Massachusetts (37) and Maine(37).

All red states...wonder why that is? Because the bible humpers don't want people using contraception and are too stupid to realize that abstinence DOES......NOT.....WORK. 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1  epistte  replied to  MrFrost @8    7 years ago

Bible thumpers don't care about science or facts when they have their sincere beliefs. 

Is religion the problem for creating stupid people,  are or ignorant people just more predisposed to believe in religion?  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.2  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.1    7 years ago
Aren't Democrats proud of the fact that blacks and Hispanics vote for them in overwhelming number?

You don't need to be religious to understand that people of color and minorities don't vote Republican when the party leadership are rich white men who still wear sheets. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.1    7 years ago

Don't blame democrats because Blacks and Hispanics refuse to vote for racist republicans. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.5    7 years ago

It's also pretty damn accurate. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.7    7 years ago

Keep telling yourself that... 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.1.14  MrFrost  replied to    7 years ago
They still have to repeat it or they'll be stuck with the facts, like how they were the Party of Slavery, Jim Crow and the KKK for 100 years.

So you are saying the KKK voted for Obama? You sure about that? LOL

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.19  epistte  replied to    7 years ago
The KKK voted Democrat for 100 years, back when they had 1,000,000+ members. Now they are less than 5000 and we have no real way of knowing how they vote these days.

You knew damn well who the alt-right votes for in the 21st century. 

The only thing we do know is that the "Alt-Right" favor things like Universal Health Care and Universal Basic Income, which doesn't sound

I want to see a cite for this claim.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.20  epistte  replied to    7 years ago

You're full of sheet that FDR was racist,

In June 1941, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802 , which created the Fair Employment Practice Committee ( FEPC ). It was the most important federal move in support of the rights of African-Americans between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The President's order stated that the federal government would not hire any person based on their race, color, creed, or national origin. The FEPC enforced the order to ban discriminatory hiring within the federal government and in corporations that received federal contracts. Millions of blacks and women achieved better jobs and better pay as a result.

Try to post something that isn't a blatant lie or a half-truth for once!

The racial stances of Eleanor Roosevelt and Truman are well known. Truman desergregated the military, which split the progressive northern Democrats from the racist southern Dixiecrats.

This is a statement by Eleanor Roosevelt about race/minority relations.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
8.1.21  Dismayed Patriot  replied to    7 years ago
we have no real way of knowing how they vote these days

What nonsense. You know full well that every one of those swastika and confederate flag waving Nazis and KKK members was a card carrying Republican and Trump supporter. Just because you don't want to admit it doesn't make it any less true. 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.26  epistte  replied to    7 years ago
Maybe you should read what I said before going off on some sort of rant. I didn't say FDR was a racist. I said the Black vote switched in 1934 to Democrat due to economic benefits from the New Deal and that it was still during the time the Democrats were the Party of the KKK.

You just repeated the BS claim that FDR supported racist policies because you refuse to differentiate northern progressive Democrats from southern racist Dixiecrats.

You are famous for these half-truths.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.29  epistte  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.21    7 years ago
What nonsense. You know full well that every one of those swastika and confederate flag waving Nazis and KKK members was a card carrying Republican and Trump supporter. Just because you don't want to admit it doesn't make it any less true.

Does Hippo of Cos have any pics of those alt-right bigots carrying signs supporting Hillary or Bernie Sanders?

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.31  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.28    7 years ago
I don't believe you understood one word of them, based solely on your replies.

The Democratic party turned against the KKK's racism and that is why those southern bigots formed the Dixiecrat party.

The Dixiecrats were members of the States' Rights Democratic Party, which splintered from the Democratic Party in 1948.

The faction consisted of malcontented southern delegates to the Democratic Party who protested the insertion of a civil rights plank in the party platform and U.S. president Harry S. Truman's advocacy of that plank. Before the convention southern delegates were dismayed by Truman's 1948 executive order to desegregate the armed forces. With that backdrop many southern delegates were already concerned as they headed to the 1948 Democratic convention.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.33  epistte  replied to    7 years ago
The Democratic Party was the Party of the KKK in 1934. Not all members were KKK, nor did I ever say that every Democrat was KKK. You're just mad because you don't like your Party's tainted history. Sorry, but that isn't my fault that you fail to read or understand what is being said. Better luck next time.

Blacks voted for Democrats because of economic issues and supported the New Deal after the crash of 1929.

The Dixiecrats became the core of the states rights TEAparty and the GOP in the south.  They now call themselves Republicans and the alt-right.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.38  epistte  replied to    7 years ago
Do signs prove who someone votes for? Is this going to be the crux of your argument? If so, you should give up now while you still have some credibility left.

Where are these lefty voting alt-right supporters?

You're getting desperate and I am thoroughly enjoying watching you twist in the wind. 

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
8.1.39  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.5    7 years ago
I didn't. And your generalization of the GOP is pure bullshit.

Look in the damn mirror.  I can't believe you even said that.  

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
8.1.40  lib50  replied to    7 years ago
They were still Democrats and a part of the Democratic Party. There was no such thing as the Dixiecrat Party.

Hello, they are all republicans now.  Do you know about this topic?  Do you know what a Dixiecrat is?

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.41  epistte  replied to    7 years ago

Strom Thurmond is the most obvious Dixiecrat who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and then became a Republican. 

I never said that there weren't racists in the DNC in the 1930s and 1940s, but FDR wasn't one of them and their racist views were largely out of favor. 

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
8.1.48  sixpick  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.1    7 years ago
Aren't Democrats proud of the fact that blacks and Hispanics vote for them in overwhelming number?

Well, I guess there are a lot of religious Blacks and Hispanics since blacks have twice the number of teen pregnancies as whites and Hispanics have more than twice the number of pregnancies as whites.  In the states that have a higher percentage of these two demographics is where you find the highest teen pregnancies.  And they vote Democrat at a rate of 90% or more.  I guess 'Idocracy' was custom made for Democrats.

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
8.1.49  sixpick  replied to    7 years ago
When did I say FDR supported racist policies? Please show me where I said anything even remotely similar to such a claim?

You're wasting your time.  Better to move on.  If there was a post near by she would argue with it.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.50  epistte  replied to    7 years ago
do you

The Klan hasn't voted Democratic in national elections since the early 1970s.   It's certain that they alt-right didn't vote for Hillary or Bernie.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.51  epistte  replied to    7 years ago
Care to show me they vote Right? Do you have their voter registration or their ballots on hand?

You know damn well that is private information. Not even the state can trace the votes to the name.

Choke on this,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/01/the-kkks-official-newspaper-has-endorsed-donald-trump-for-president/?utm_term=.072bccc20d3a

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
8.1.52  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to    7 years ago

Gosh, I wonder which one of these decisions will sound racist?

Until Harry Truman, a Democrat, did it, the U.S. was racially segregated.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.53  epistte  replied to    7 years ago

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.1.54  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.15    7 years ago
He said nothing of the sort. WTF did YOU read?

He said that the KKK is a democrat organization. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.1.55  MrFrost  replied to    7 years ago
Do signs prove who someone votes for?

How many "Vote Hillary" signs did you see at trump rallies? Why would someone carry a sign that promotes someone they don't like or don't intend to vote for? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.1.56  MrFrost  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @8.1.52    7 years ago
Until Harry Truman, a Democrat, did it, the U.S. was racially segregated.

Might as well move on, they are a partisan hack and have the, "everything democrats do is wrong, everything republicans do is right" attitude. They literally said that Obama had NOTHING to do with adding 15 million jobs in 8 years, but, it's all because of trump that jobs have been added since he took office. laughing dude

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
Freshman Silent
8.1.59  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  epistte @8.1.2    7 years ago
the party leadership are rich white men who still wear sheets.

LOL, I like the way you refer to the Democrat Party!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
8.1.62  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to    7 years ago
And you know this how?

Umm, try history.  You do know what history is, don't you?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
8.1.63  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to    7 years ago
Then show me proof of how they actually vote.

The segregationists they put into office who became republicans after passage of the CRA in the mid-1960s--Helms, Thurmond, Lott, for examples.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
8.1.64  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to    7 years ago
If so, you should give up now while you still have some credibility left.

Another in a series of declarations that come right back and bite the declarer's ass.  

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
8.1.71  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to    7 years ago

I guess I did forget to put one word in there to clarify what I meant, "Military". Truman, a Democrat DESEGREGATED THE U.S. MILITARY.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.72  epistte  replied to    7 years ago
Only the Democrat South was segregated due to Democrat Jim Crow Laws. We didn't have "Whites Only" signs up here where I live.

THose racist former Southern Democrats are now hardcore Christian Republicans. RE; Roy Moore and Jeff Sessions. Nixon welcomed them to the party with his Southern Strategy. Reagan pandered to the evangelical right and helped create the (im)moral majority.  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.78  epistte  replied to    7 years ago
Except the region isn't racist anymore. The Region may be majority Republican now, but is was only a racist hot spot back in the time of Democrat rule. You act as if this is still the 1950s.

You're kidding,.......aren't you?

The American Southeast is the heart of the Klan and the Neo-Nazis. These states are also the poorest, sickest and least well educated so voting GOP isn't helping them.

 

Your intellectual dishonesty isn't fooling anyone. 

 
 
 
magnoliaave
Sophomore Quiet
8.1.80  magnoliaave  replied to    7 years ago

I am so sick of these people about the South!

Divorce us and pay us alimony.  We will be glad to get out of your life, but then, who would they have to blame everything on?

Part of the agreement is.....no visitation rights and you may NOT plant your ass when you retire in the South!

 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Quiet
8.1.81  lennylynx  replied to  magnoliaave @8.1.80    7 years ago

But Mango, y'all put that freak show Trump in the White House!! eek

 
 
 
magnoliaave
Sophomore Quiet
8.1.83  magnoliaave  replied to  lennylynx @8.1.81    7 years ago

It is the last good thing that we will do for our Country.  Thereafter, just pay your alimony.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.84  epistte  replied to  lennylynx @8.1.81    7 years ago
But Mango, y'all put that freak show Trump in the White House!!

They also elected Jeff Sessions to the Senate and supported Roy Moore's failed effort to be Torquemada.

Alabama is also a high user of SNAP and welfare.

The federal food stamp program in Alabama (officially knows as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) has almost 20 percent more enrollees than Alabama’s K-12 public school system, according to an analysis of both programs.
 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Quiet
8.1.85  lennylynx  replied to  epistte @8.1.84    7 years ago

Merry Christmas Epistte!!  Keep on kicking ass next year!

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.86  epistte  replied to  lennylynx @8.1.85    7 years ago
Keep on kicking ass next year!

Thanks. You too.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.87  epistte  replied to  magnoliaave @8.1.83    7 years ago
It is the last good thing that we will do for our Country.

Alabama and most southern states would have to pay Washington before they leave because they take more than they give. Alabama couldn't afford to leave the US without becoming an impoverished country. 

Another part of the explanation is easier to discern. The reddest states on that map at the top—Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, New Mexico, Maine—have exceptionally high poverty rates and thus receive disproportionately large shares of federal dollars. Through a variety of social programs, the federal government disburses hundreds of billions of dollars each year to maintain a “safety net” intended to help the neediest among us. Consider, for example, the percentage of each state’s residents who get “food stamps” through the federal government’s SNAP program. This chart tells the story.
 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
8.1.88  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to    7 years ago
And what of the ones that remained Democrats, like Robert Byrd?

Odd how that's the only name your sort ever seems to able to come up with.  BTW, after opposing the CRAs of '64 and '65, Byrd voted for the '68 VRA which is what republiscum are now trying to roll back in every state they control and nationally with Kobach's phony and corrupted crusade against non-existent voting fraud.  Oh, yes.  No question about it, the republiscum party is the new face of the KKK.   

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.89  epistte  replied to    7 years ago
So it only took 120 years for the Democratic Party to overcome racism? I suppose some progress is better than none. Do you want a cookie now for someone else's achievement? Otherwise I'm not sure what the point of bringing up Truman was. After all, the good doesn't wash away the bad.

You should try to tell the truth for once, even if it just for Christmas.

How long will it take for the GOP to overcome racism?

The Democratic party was held together by economic ideas because the northern Democrats rejected slavery before the Civil War. You admitted yourself that you never saw Jim Crow and Whites only signs in the north.  The southern Democrats were openly racist and refused to join the GOP after the Civil War reunification because of their hatred of Lincoln. The difference in race/social policies split the party in the 1950s with the racists becoming an independent Dixiecrat party and then joining the GOP when the Dixiecrats failed to have much political clout.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.1.90  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.58    7 years ago
Are you disputing that slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK were NOT mainly populated with Democrats??

I am. When those organizations were formed, democrats, (republican's at the time), fled the South leaving behind the racism. In no way can anyone say that Lincoln would be a republican today, he would be considered a far left wing liberal, (like Jesus was). 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
8.1.91  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  lib50 @8.1.40    7 years ago
Hello, they are all republicans now.

Only THREE (that's the number between 2 and 4) "Dixicrats" went on to change parties to Republican :

  1. Jesse Helms (NC)
  2. Strom Thurmond (SC)
  3. Mills Godwin Jr. (VA)

93% of the "Dixicrat" Governors and Senators remained DEMOCRAT FOR LIFE.

 
 
 
magnoliaave
Sophomore Quiet
8.1.92  magnoliaave  replied to  epistte @8.1.84    7 years ago

Like I said,  kick us out of your club.  Pay our alimony and I want a new car every year.  I want free education for my grand children, I want a supplement income, I want free medical care, so, doesn't that sound familiar?

Just keep on keeping on what you are doing now for the entire country, but we pay no taxes and you get no soft spots to put your fuzzy head when you want a place to rest.

You are off limits.

'

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.93  epistte  replied to  magnoliaave @8.1.92    7 years ago
I want free education for my grand children, I want a supplement income, I want free medical care, so, doesn't that sound familiar?

I had no idea that you were such a closet progressive. Tell politicians to keep their hands off of the social statement and stop giving handouts to the rich and corporations and instead pass single payer, free college, and a guaranteed basic income.  Or stop electing politicians who want to privatize things and tear down the domestic programs that we like.

I would never want to move Alabama or anywhere else in the American south. My tastes run to Canada or northern Europe for retirement. I didn't mind paying taxes, as long as that money is used for the proper purposes, unlike the current situation in the US. 

Maybe we could stop the bailouts, cut the DOD by 1/2 and instead spend the money on our people instead of bombing/invading everyone for profit and cheap access to raw materials.

Merry Christmas.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.1.94  MrFrost  replied to    7 years ago
racist Democrats

Have you looked at the demographics of our current congress? You should. "Racist Democrats"? Fuking laughable. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
8.1.99  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to    7 years ago
LMAO, the number between 2 and 4. Good one!!!

Sometimes you have to break it down Barney Style.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.1.102  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.100    7 years ago
Democrats passed Jim Crow, Democrats started the KKK, Democrats fought to keep slavery.

Those democrats are republicans today. The parties have changed their views many times over the years. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.1.103  MrFrost  replied to    7 years ago

No, they aren't. They are primarily republicans. David Duke ring a bell? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.1.104  MrFrost  replied to    7 years ago
Who said anything about Obama? Other than you...

Yes I did. You were inferring that the KKK was a democrat organization, I was pointing out that Obama is black and most likely, not voted for by the KKK. 

 
 
 
Old Hermit
Sophomore Silent
8.1.108  Old Hermit  replied to    7 years ago
The KKK was a Democrat thing, and that is an undeniable historical fact.

.

This, "Democrats = KKK or Jim Crow" has got to be one of the most stupid canards that conservatives keep regurgitating.

The Trojan that stood on the wall and defended Troy is NOT the same Trojan you slipped on your partner last night and it's the height of stupidity to keep insisting that the same word can't describe two or more very different things.

The KKK were not voting for a "Democrat" they were voting for polices of bigotry and the leaders that espoused them. The D or R or Wig or Bull Moose name on the political party that pushed those ideals didn't mean diddly to the party members. 

The only thing that mattered was the policy of hate being pushed, which is why those kind of voters had no problem going from D to R when the parties switched platforms.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
8.1.109  Bob Nelson  replied to  Old Hermit @8.1.108    7 years ago

Give it up, AH.

They know perfectly well that they're spouting BS. It's a tribal thing. Proof of membership in the clan of "I'll say anything to advance the Cause!"

In fact, they get extra points for the most ridiculous, over-the-top Comment of the day. There's an Honor Role over at Team Red headquarters... crazy

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
8.1.110  cjcold  replied to  Old Hermit @8.1.108    7 years ago

Couldn't have put it better. It's all about the intent, not the label.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
8.1.111  cjcold  replied to  lib50 @8.1.39    7 years ago

Funny how far right wing fascists tend to act like far right wing fascists. Lies are their stock in trade. Truth is their enemy.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
8.1.112  cjcold  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.91    7 years ago

It's all about the intent and morals, not the name. Stupidity at its best.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
8.1.113  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  cjcold @8.1.112    7 years ago
It's all about the intent and morals

The "intent and morals" displayed here are some pretty shitty ones.  

Stupidity at its best.

That's an understatement.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
8.1.114  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.101    7 years ago
When have Democrats ever done what you suggested--cut defense in 1/2, free tuition, basic income, etc?

You should have voted for Bernie Sanders.  Hillary is a center-right Democrat but she has never been a liberal or .........(gasp) a progressive.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
8.1.115  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to    7 years ago

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.116  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.9    7 years ago
What I objected to was your characterizing the GOP as racist.

LOL.    So why did you conservatives vote for the King of the Birthers?

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
Freshman Silent
8.1.118  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  Skrekk @8.1.116    7 years ago
So why did you conservatives vote for the King of the Birthers?

Conservatives did not vote for Hillary Clinton, the person who gave birth to the Birther movement.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
8.1.121  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.120    7 years ago
Exactly how is the birther movement racist? and PLEASE don't say it is solely because Obama is 1/2 black.

How many presidents had their birth place questioned by the opposing party? How many had to provide their birth certificates AFTER the election twice and, then had to have the governor of their birth state confirm that they were born in that state and, still had the other party deny all evidence that they were born in the United States?

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.124  Skrekk  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.91    7 years ago
93% of the "Dixicrat" Governors and Senators remained DEMOCRAT FOR LIFE.

Heck, there are Dixiecrats like Kim Davis who only recently learned that the GOP is the current home for really dumb bigots and so they switched parties in just the past few years.     Some parts of the country are slower and dumber than others.

But as far as your 93% claim there are many Dixiecrats who started life as Dems but first ran for office as Republicans, like Trent Lott.    Others are like David Duke who learned they could only win election running as a Republican.   But they all have remained the same really dumb bigots they always were, like when Lott eulogized Strom Thurmond by declaring ''You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.''

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
8.1.125  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Skrekk @8.1.124    7 years ago
ut as far as your 93% claim there are many Dixiecrats who started life as Dems but first ran for office as Republicans, like Trent Lott.

You apparently didn't look at the video.  

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.126  Skrekk  replied to    7 years ago
They act as if it is still the 1950s.

It sill is in the GOP.    That's why your party platform is racist, homophobic and misogynistic.   And its why the GOP voted for the racist King of the Birthers.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.127  Skrekk  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.125    7 years ago
You apparently didn't look at the video.

I did....it was rather amusing since your party voted for the racist King of the Birthers for President.

In fact the only things that's changed about the racist southern conservatives in the past 150 years is their party affiliation.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.128  Skrekk  replied to  sixpick @8.1.48    7 years ago
I guess 'Idocracy' was custom made for Democrats.

It certainly was made for their amusement.   It's a documentary about T-baggers and the rise of ignorance as a family value, and it foreshadowed the election of Trump.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
8.1.129  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Skrekk @8.1.127    7 years ago
I did....

Then it's your comprehension skills that need work.  The rest of your comment is nothing more than deflection and I'll just leave it at that.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.130  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.120    7 years ago
Exactly how is the birther movement racist?

LOL.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
8.1.133  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to    7 years ago

If it's a lie, it came out of Donald's own mouth. In his own words, "There are some very FINE people on both sides." So, he considers Neo-Nazi's and, Klansmen very fine people. As for the other links I put up there, they show that during the election the Klan supported him.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.136  Skrekk  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.129    7 years ago
Then it's your comprehension skills that need work.

No, I think I got the message that there were many racist southern Dems who remained Dems.....despite the fact that the video (intentionally?) misstated a number of facts like the fact that Robert Byrd renounced racism (no racist Republican ever did that) and the fact that Jesse Helms was a registered Dem before he ran for Senate as a Republican.    I'm not sure that you should be too proud of the fact that such a bigoted Republican moron represented your state anyway.    However there's no doubt that Helms and other racist southern bible-babblers of that era represented what the modern GOP was to become today - Christofascist, Islamophobic, racist, homophobic and misogynistic.

One thing is for damn sure......even a really dumb bigot like Helms wouldn't tolerate how the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win an election, much less tolerated all the conservative apologists who try to justify or trivialize that behavior.    While his irrational phobias against socialist countries were a real character flaw at least he understood that Russia was a threat to the US.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
8.1.137  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.122    7 years ago

Republicans accepted the guy who lead the birther movement after the election into their party and, then elected him president and, most of you on NT still call Obama a Muslim and, a Kenyan. Please, don't piss down my back and, tell me it's raining.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
8.1.138  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Skrekk @8.1.136    7 years ago
I got the message that there were many racist southern Dems who remained Dems.

Took long enough.  And that is the only thing you got right.  The rest is just more deflection, much like your last comment.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
8.1.140  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to    7 years ago

No, I don't think so. This is right out of the Republican Party Platform for 2016.

Defending Marriage Against an Activist Judiciary Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent. We, therefore, support the appointment of justices and judges who respect the constitutional limits on their power and respect the authority of the states to decide such fundamental social questions.

It is clear that the Republican Party intended in these words to undermine the Judiciary, especially the SCOTUS.

The First Amendment: Religious Liberty The Bill of Rights lists religious liberty, with its rights of conscience, as the first freedom to be protected. Religious freedom in the Bill of Rights protects the right of the people to practice their faith in their everyday lives. As George Washington taught, “religion and morality are indispensable supports” to a free society. Similarly, Thomas Jefferson declared that “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.” Ongoing attempts to compel individuals, businesses, and institutions of faith to transgress their beliefs are part of a
misguided effort to undermine religion and drive it from the public square. As a result, many charitable religious institutions that have demonstrated great success in helping the needy have been barred from receiving government grants and contracts. Government officials threaten religious colleges and universities with massive fines and seek to control their personnel decisions. Places of worship for the first time in our history have reason to fear the loss of tax-exempt status merely for espousing and practicing traditional religious beliefs that have been held across the world for thousands of years, and for almost four centuries in America. We value the right of America’s religious leaders to preach, and Americans to speak freely, according to their faith. Republicans believe the federal government, specifically the IRS, is constitutionally prohibited from policing or censoring speech based on religious convictions or beliefs, and therefore we urge the repeal of the Johnson Amendment. We pledge to defend the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard religious institutions against government control. We endorse the First Amendment Defense Act, Republican legislation in the House and Senate which will bar government discrimination against individuals and businesses for acting on the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. This Act would protect the non-profit tax status of faith-based adoption agencies, the accreditation of religious educational institutions, the grants and contracts of faith-based charities and small businesses, and the licensing of religious professions — all of which are under assault by elements of the Democratic Party. We encourage every state to pass similar legislation. We likewise endorse the efforts of Republican state legislators and governors who have defied intimidation from corporations and the media in defending religious liberty. We support laws to confirm the longstanding
• REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 2016 •

We pledge to defend the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard religious institutions against government control.
12
American tradition that religious individuals and institutions can educate young people, receive government benefits, and participate in public debates without having to check their religious beliefs at the door. Our First Amendment rights are not given to us by the government but are rights we inherently possess. The government cannot use subsequent amendments to limit First Amendment rights. The Free Exercise Clause is both an individual and a collective liberty protecting a right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience. Therefore, we strongly support the freedom of Americans to act in accordance with their religious beliefs, not only in their houses of worship, but also in their everyday lives. We support the right of the people to conduct their businesses in accordance with their religious beliefs and condemn public officials who have proposed boycotts against businesses that support traditional marriage. We pledge to protect those business owners who have been subjected to hate campaigns, threats of violence, and other attempts to deny their civil rights. We support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage and further affirm the rights of religious students to engage in voluntary prayer at public school events and to have equal access to school facilities. We assert the First Amendment right of freedom of association for religious, private, service, and youth organizations to set their own membership standards. 

And, it is clear here that the intent is to make this a one religion country and, to deny the rights of others the choice of which religion they would worship.

It is clear when you look at the full platform it is nothing but, a document that is meant to set a precedent that will change the country and, destroy the Judiciary and, the Constitution. Written by bigots for bigots.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.1.142  MrFrost  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @8.1.118    7 years ago
the person who gave birth to the Birther movement.

1) No, she didn't.

2) Who used it for the last 8 years? Republicans. 

Thanks for playing! 

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.143  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.123    7 years ago
If you are going to accuse me of being racist, you need to provide proof or keep quiet.

Your claim that Birthers aren't racist revealed you for what you are.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.144  Skrekk  replied to    7 years ago
Utter nonsense.

You obviously haven't read the GOP platform or paid any attention to what they do on these social issues.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.146  Skrekk  replied to    7 years ago
And Democrats accept that he "renounced racism" simply because he's another Democrat.

No, it's because Byrd spent the rest of his career fighting for civil rights, something which the modern GOP opposes.    It's why the NAACP eulogized Byrd.....unlike the racist T-baggers who are unaware of his actual legislative record on civil rights issues.

.

I don't think the NAACP has ever eulogized a Republican, at least not since the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the GOP's racist southern strategy.    And I doubt that the NAACP is unaware that conservatives voted for the racist King of the Birthers, a guy with a history of refusing to rent to blacks.

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
Freshman Silent
8.1.147  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @8.1.121    7 years ago
How many presidents had their birth place questioned by the opposing party?

It started in his own party.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.148  Skrekk  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8.1.138    7 years ago
The rest is just more deflection, much like your last comment.

Really?   Which parts of my comment are you whining about?    The fact that southern conservatives are the same bigoted morons today that they were 150 years ago, the fact that southern conservatives today are Republicans rather than Dems, or the fact that the party of dumb bigots today is the GOP?    There's a good reason the south is a solid block of red states today.

Or are you whining about the fact that Jesse Helms would have voted to convict Trump if he were impeached, despite the fact that he hated pretty much all the same minority groups as Trump does?

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
Freshman Silent
8.1.149  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  MrFrost @8.1.142    7 years ago
1) No, she didn't.

Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

 
 
 
Capt. Cave Man
Freshman Silent
8.1.153  Capt. Cave Man  replied to    7 years ago

It tries to impress us with all the big words it knows...

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.154  Skrekk  replied to    7 years ago
Then why did he vote against the Civil Rights Act? And what civil rights did he champion later in his life?

You're free to do your own research but as the NAACP noted he had an exemplary voting record once he renounced his racist past and decided to support civil rights.

.

something which the modern GOP opposes

Absurd. You Leftists keep spewing that tired, worn out lie and the only ones you'll convince is each other. 

As I said you obviously haven't even read the GOP's vile platform or paid attention to their racist, homophobic and misogynistic agenda.    The only civil rights they care about are gun rights and the rights of Christians to use religion as an excuse to violate secular laws.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.155  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.145    7 years ago
So ya got nothing/ As usual?

We've got your claim that birthers aren't racist despite Obama showing his state-issued COLB in June 2008.......even today the vast majority of you Republicans are convinced that Obama wasn't born in the US despite that racist nonsense being debunked almost 10 years ago, showing that conservative Americans are literally the dumbest people on the planet as well as being profoundly racist.

In fact that was the biggest factor which indicates a Trump voter....whether a voter thought Obama was Muslim or foreign-born.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.156  Skrekk  replied to    7 years ago
I have, and that's why I say your nonsense is just that, nonsense.

That's either a false or deluded claim given that the social aspects of the GOP platform were literally written by an anti-LGBT hate group.    However it's not surprising since you seem to share many anti-LGBT views yourself despite your claims to be related to an LGBT activist.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.158  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.157    7 years ago
I always birtherism was a bunch of bullshit.

Strange then that you're an apologist for the racist and xenophobic birthers whose motives for refusing to deem credible a state-issued certificate are rather obvious.

No surprise though that the vast majority of Republicans still hold those racist and moronic views.   No wonder they voted for the King of the Birthers......no sane or ethical person would have done that.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
8.1.159  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Skrekk @8.1.148    7 years ago
Which parts of my comment are you whining about?

It's not whining.  I just dismissed it as a deflection.  And I'm referring to about 90% of your comments since it bothers you that much.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
8.1.160  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to    7 years ago
And Democrats accept that he "renounced racism" simply because he's another Democrat.

Actually it seems they do.  Racists, pedophiles, womanizers, they apologize and it's all good.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.162  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.161    7 years ago

Your comment upthread   speaks for itself.    Everyone reading this can see that you're an apologist for racist birthers.

 
 
 
magnoliaave
Sophomore Quiet
8.1.164  magnoliaave  replied to  Skrekk @8.1.126    7 years ago

Give it up, already!

Same song, second verse, let's hum!

 
 
 
DRHunk
Freshman Silent
8.1.165  DRHunk  replied to  Capt. Cave Man @8.1.149    7 years ago

an intern forwarding an e-mail unknown to the candidate (Hillary), much less known to the campaign organizer does not put the blame of the birther movement onto the candidate,but places it upon an unsuspecting intern whom was fired. The blame or the movement goes to those that embraced it and kept it alive for years and years even after it had been debunked. I like to call them morons.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.166  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.163    7 years ago
Yes, everyone CAN read what I have posted and determine for themselves that only a complete idiot would think I am an apologist.

Yeah, it's a bit like asking whether Trump is an apologist for white supremacists after he made his notorious comments about what happened in Charlottesville..

 
 
 
DRHunk
Freshman Silent
8.1.168  DRHunk  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.9    7 years ago

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck......

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
8.1.169  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.123    7 years ago
If you are going to accuse me of being racist, you need to provide proof or keep quiet.

Interesting that you take umbrage for something that didn't happen.  Really does reveal something about you the you were hoping to conceal. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
8.1.170  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to    7 years ago
Buying votes isn't what the GOP does.

No, they just rig the voting districts.  But they do get paid handsomely for doing that so their corruption is massive and systemic, root t0 stem to every rotten leaf and rancid fruit. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Quiet
8.1.171  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  sixpick @8.1.48    7 years ago
Well, I guess there are a lot of religious Blacks and Hispanics since blacks have twice the number of teen pregnancies as whites and Hispanics have more than twice the number of pregnancies as whites.

And then you people bawl and tantrum about being called racist.  

 
 
 
magnoliaave
Sophomore Quiet
8.3  magnoliaave  replied to  MrFrost @8    7 years ago

Why is it always this?

We will always been divided in our country because of that attitude.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
9  charger 383    7 years ago

Overpopulation is the biggest problem politicians are afraid to face

 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Quiet
9.1  lennylynx  replied to  charger 383 @9    7 years ago

Absolutely Charger, and it's never talked about.  No one even suggests limiting our procreation.  Having babies is still considered a wonderful thing, and people who chose not to have children, are treated like outcasts, weirdos who don't have kids like the rest of us.  We should revere these people and hold them up as examples of responsibility and social consciousness. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
9.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  lennylynx @9.1    7 years ago

Yep, and we have these "good Christians" like the duggars that pump out one kid after another, (then molest them....figures). 

 
 
 
Rex Block
Freshman Silent
10  Rex Block    7 years ago

If women could control their bodies, they wouldn't need abortions. Just a thought.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
10.1  epistte  replied to  Rex Block @10    7 years ago

Your statement is simply ignorant beyond any reasonable ideas.  If women could control our bodies we also wouldn't get sick, old or die either.

Maybe men should learn to control their bodies so women didn't get pregnant or you could accept biological reality and keep your religious opinions off of our bodies and out of our lives.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
10.1.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  epistte @10.1    7 years ago

If more women would swallow we wouldn’t have so many getting pregnant. 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
10.1.2  epistte  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10.1.1    7 years ago
If more women would swallow we wouldn’t have so many getting pregnant.

No comment.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
10.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Rex Block @10    7 years ago

The same could be said about men and they only need to control one tiny part.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
11  seeder  Gordy327    7 years ago

Given how many comments this discussion has accrued, I have reposted the article as a continuation of this discussion. If anyone is interested, it has the same title with "Repost" added and is under the News & Politics section of topics. Here is a direct link to the reposted article :

Thanks.

 
 

Who is online



413 visitors