Silence in the face of evil

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  117 comments

Silence in the face of evil
Stuff your rosaries and your weaponized prayer. We will remain outraged after this weekend, so keep praying. We’ll be burning the Eucharist to show our disgust for the abuse Catholic Churches have condoned for centuries"....Ruth Sent Us

Early on Mother's Day they struck. They set fire to the Madison Wisconsin headquarters of a religious group called "Wisconsin Family Action." The group provides counseling to women. Flames were seen coming from the building shortly after 6 AM. The outside of the building had been spray-painted with the words "If abortions aren't safe then you aren't either." Police found the remnants of at least one Molotov Cocktail - the radical left's calling card.

A pop-up group known as "Ruth Sent Us" (we can only guess who is behind it) threatened Church services with this warning: "Stuff your rosaries and your weaponized prayer. We will remain outraged after this weekend, so keep praying. We’ll be burning the Eucharist to show our disgust for the abuse Catholic Churches have condoned for centuries." A church in Colorado a church was defaced. At St Patrick's Church in NYC people were harassed.

This week Justice Alito was forced to flee his home as left wing activists showed up at his home and the home of other justices. 



All of the above is illegal. Biden's DOJ hasn't done a thing. The FBI hasn't done a thing. 

Nancy Pelosi is actively inciting this mob:

"House  Speaker Nancy  Pelosi  Monday lauded protesters expressing "righteous anger" in the wake of a leaked  Supreme Court  draft opinion that shows the court may be poised to overturn Roe v. Wade. 

"While we have seen and heard extraordinary anguish in our communities," Pelosi, D-Calif., said, "we have been moved by how so many have channeled their righteous anger into meaningful action: planning to march and mobilize to make their voices heard."

In the statement, Pelosi also attacked Republicans and the Supreme Court over the expected ruling, and says that Democrats will "fight relentlessly to enshrine Roe v. Wade as the law of the land."

foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-abortion-ruling-righteous-anger-supreme-court

A progressive guest on MSNBC said she would like to offer the leaker sexual services and that she'd like to get pregnant so that she could celebrate the whole affair with an abortion.

This is who they are!





975x0.jpg


Wednesday Chuck Schumer will try to pass a radical abortion bill that House democrats passed last year, known as the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA). The problem with this bill is that it has a slick loophole included in it. After fetal viability, the WHPA would assure a right to an abortion whenever the physician’s “good-faith medical judgment” is that “the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” It neither explains nor set limits to a physician’s “good-faith medical judgment.” In other words, any perceived mental, emotional or familial factors could be used in order to permit an abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.



Here's a thought: If the democrats can vote on a national abortion law, the Republicans, once they control all three branches of government might just do the same thing.





Tags

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

“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one which the defenders of  Roe  and Casey now chiefly rely upon — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,”  he  wrote.

“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” Justice Alito said in the draft, which was dated February and leaked to Politico."



 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

"Early on Mother's Day they struck. They set fire to the Madison Wisconsin headquarters of a religious group called "Wisconsin Family Action." The group provides counseling to women. Flames were seen coming from the building shortly after 6 AM. The outside of the building had been spray-painted with the words "If abortions aren't safe then you aren't either." Police found the remnants of at least one Molotov Cocktail - the radical left's calling card."

How so?

Sounds like a right wing plant.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.1  JBB  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    2 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
1.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

Apples and lug nuts comparison.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    2 weeks ago
Sounds like a right wing plant.

Come up with new damn material. It was disproven during the BLM/Antifa riots; and it is just as full of shit now.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  JBB @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

The left needs to learn the damn law; and follow it!!!!

It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government as defined in section 7322(1) of title 5 , United States Code, to engage in, or not to engage in, any political activity,

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.5  JBB  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
1.1.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

Then they should go protest outside the homes of abortion clinic employees.  It is illegal to protest and try to intimidate judges.  Or don't laws count because liberals have "right" on their side?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    2 weeks ago
How so? Sounds like a right wing plant.

Everything the leftist radicals do always seem like right wing plants to you!

Way too much projection, denial, and deflection in your post!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

I've seen lots of bigotry from the left the last few days. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    2 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
2.2.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @2.2    2 weeks ago

This is why everybody always takes you seriously.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.2    2 weeks ago

What does Kavanaugh have to do with lawless mobs attacking and defacing churches?

Please relate how Kavanaugh made them act like the idiots they are.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3  JBB    2 weeks ago

With six fundamentalist Catholic US Supreme Court Justices America is effectively ruled by the Papists!

Once they outlaw abortions, contraception, gay and interracial marriage, they are coming for you, too...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3    2 weeks ago
Once they outlaw abortions, contraception, gay and interracial marriage, they are coming for you, too...

Where did you get the idea SCOTUS was outlawing abortions?

Seems hysteria has got the better of you.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.1  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    2 weeks ago

What do you think will happen when the court issues its decision triggering laws making abortions illegal in twenty six states? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
What do you think will happen when the court issues its decision triggering laws making abortions illegal in twenty six states? 

Well, I certainly won't think SCOTUS outlawed abortion!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
What do you think will happen when the court issues its decision triggering laws making abortions illegal

I think that there are pre-viability bans in 16 states current blocked by Roe that would go into effect. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

"What do you think will happen when the court issues its decision triggering laws making abortions illegal in twenty six states?"

As one moronic poster said - it will help support the travel industry and provide jobs for these women who will have to travel to obtain a legal procedure.

jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.5    2 weeks ago

I didn't mean to say it would create jobs for the women who had to travel to other states to get a NOW legal procedure - it was said by the poster that it would help the travel industry.  MORON!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @3    2 weeks ago
With six fundamentalist Catholic US Supreme Court Justices America is effectively ruled by the Papists!

Isn’t Gorsuch Episcopalian?  Why do you think that Sotomayor is a fundamentalist?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.2.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2    2 weeks ago
Isn’t Gorsuch Episcopalian

He was born Anglican but then went to Catholic school. Sotomayor is also Catholic

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.2.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

I don’t know if he was born Catholic, I do know that he was married in the Church of England, and attends an Episicopal Church in Vienna, Va.  I believe that he self-identifies as a Protestant.  

Sotomayor is Catholic like Biden and Pelosi are but what makes you think that she is a Fundamentalist? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.2.3  JBB  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

You have it a little wrong. Gorsuch was born and raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools but his wife is Anglican. Because she did not convert they are/were ineligible for Catholic rights and attend an Episcopal congregation that considers itself hybrid Catholic/Anglican...

Gorsuch has refused to clarify his religion...

In any case, Catholics are overrepresented.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.2.4  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.2    2 weeks ago

Nobody said Sotomayor was fundie Catholic.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.2.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @3.2.4    2 weeks ago
With six fundamentalist Catholic US Supreme Court Justices

How do you get to six without Sotomayor?

and attended Catholic schools

I doubt that he picked the schools he attended before college.  He got his degrees from Columbia and Harvard like President Obama.

There is no info that suggests that Gorsuch has s a Fundamentalist Catholic. Before moving here, he attended St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder. A inclusive liberal church in a liberal city.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.2.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.2    2 weeks ago
Sotomayor is Catholic like Biden and Pelosi are but what makes you think that she is a Fundamentalist? 

I never said she was.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.2.8  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.6    2 weeks ago

Gorsuch was born, baptized, raised and educated Catholic. He married an Anglican and attends church with her but has never converted from Catholic to Episcopal. Looks like a duck. Waddles like a duck. Quacks like a duck. Since Gorsuch refuses to clarify his specific faith I consider him still a Catholic...

Six, seven or six and a half Catholics out of nine total SC Justices is not representative!

Could you make one point without going all pickaune about pedantic details just once?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.2.9  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.7    2 weeks ago

I replied to this comment:

With six fundamentalist Catholic US Supreme Court Justices America is effectively ruled by the Papists!

and asked, “Why do you think that Sotomayor is a fundamentalist?”  You joined the conversation with the observation that Sotomayor is also Catholic.  Perhaps you didn’t read the preceding adjective fundamentalist in the initial remark or in my comment.  No worries.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.2.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @3.2.8    2 weeks ago
I consider him still a Catholic...

You consider him a fundamentalist Catholic but supported that position or why you called Sotomayor a fundamentalist Catholic.

Could you make one point without going all pickaune about pedantic details just once?

You choose the hyperbolic adjective for a reason, nothing about these two Justices suggest fundamentalism.  Why can’t you admit to a mistake?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.2.11  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.9    2 weeks ago

Which is why nobody can take you seriously...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.2.12  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @3.2.11    2 weeks ago

You’ve made a logical, persuasive argument again.  Thanks for the discussion.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @3.2.4    2 weeks ago
It's Gorsucks who is the fundamentalist whackjob

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.6    2 weeks ago

So what?

Liberal, right!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.2.15  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.13    2 weeks ago

That’s not a quote from 3.2.4., disinformation campaign?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @3.2.11    2 weeks ago

"Which is why nobody can take you seriously..."

Nobody does . . .he seems to have cut back on talking down to me lately . . . and putting words in my mouth.  I guess I haven't given him as many opportunities.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.2.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.16    2 weeks ago
I guess I haven't given him as many opportunities.  

I haven’t seen a decrease but who’s counting.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.18  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.15    2 weeks ago

We are not the ones promoting disinformation.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.2.19  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.18    2 weeks ago
We are not the ones promoting disinformation.  

You're the one inserting a false quote:

It's Gorsucks who is the fundamentalist whackjob

into your comment.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.2.20  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.14    2 weeks ago
Liberal, right!

The Church he selected is .  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.21  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.19    2 weeks ago

It wasn't a quote, false or otherwise

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.22  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.20    2 weeks ago

That's nice.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.2.23  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.21    2 weeks ago
It wasn't a quote, false or otherwise

So why did you use either the Reply-with-Quote (RwQ) or the Quote toolbar button?  Why did you want the text placed in a gray box to distinguish it as a quote?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.2.24  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.22    2 weeks ago
That's nice.

Yes, Pastor Susan does important ministry to the homeless and those with AIDS.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @3    2 weeks ago
Once they outlaw abortions, contraception, gay and interracial marriage, they are coming for you, too...

That's some serious conspiracy theory shit you just threw out there.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.3.1  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3    2 weeks ago

Yeah, that is also what the damn gop said about their not so secret plans to outlaw abortions while they were packing the Supreme Court with far far rightwing ideologues dedicated to doing exactly that. Remember the gop reassuring us they were not doing that, and would not do it?

original

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @3.3.1    2 weeks ago

So you are still basing your entire opinion on "what if" scenarios.  I call those conspiracy theories.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.3  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.3.1    2 weeks ago

This may seem like a completely foreign concept to you, but in the America I live in, SCOTUS doesn't have the power to make abortion illegal.

Where do you live where that is true? 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
4  Buzz of the Orient    2 weeks ago
"This week Justice Alito was forced to flee his home as left wing activists showed up at his home and the home of other justices."

As I said elsewhere, and will say again....

IMO that's a brilliant way to make the justices harden their resolve and shove their decision down the liberals' throats.  Sure as hell I would if I were a judge.  It may also serve to turn Republican voters who would have voted against the candidates who supported that decision into deciding to vote them in for spite. "Stupid is as stupid does."  (Forrest Gump)

Now let's see if those conservatives who don't agree with my objectivity, when it comes to liberal vs conservative, refuse to vote up my post - i.e. those who don' t believe that I thought Trump was absolutely right to back Israel's right to declare Jerusalem the ancient and rightful capital of Israel, and that due to conquest of the Golan Heights in a defensive war brought on by Syria Israel is entitled to absolute sovereignty over the Golan Heights, notwithstanding that any other nation would have been, but not those fucking Jews because of good old-fashioned antisemitism, eh?  But on those issues, Trump was better and deserved more respect than ANY previous POTUS, matched only by America's original UN vote for partition.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
4.1  squiggy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    2 weeks ago
don't agree with my objectivity

I missed the whole exit ramp.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  squiggy @4.1    2 weeks ago

???

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
4.1.2  squiggy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

Abortion and the Supreme Court ended up on the road to Jerusalem.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
5  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

The Democrats are famous for going all in on street drama and overreacting anytime something doesn't go their way.

And now they've fired up their brain dead dupes and inciting them to commit violence

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
6  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 weeks ago
Here's a thought: If the democrats can vote on a national abortion law, the Republicans, once they control all three branches of government might just do the same thing.

You are speaking from both sides of your mouth. On one hand, you have admonished pro-choice people that if they wanted to have protection, they should have made a law, and on the other hand, you are now showing the flaw to that.

Roe v Wade was protected under the Constitution.

And for the record, I don't condone this kind of violence, nor protesting in front of private residences.  I do understand the sense of betrayal. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.1  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6    2 weeks ago

Unfortunately, it seems some are taking cues from the 'pro-life protestors'. Let's hope they don't take it to the extremes that 'pro-lifers' have. 

After decades of harassing clinics, doxing doctors, attacking doctor's families, bombings, murdering patients and clinicians and going as far as murdering Dr. Tiller at his church, it's hard to feel sorry for 'the other side' feeling threatened for once. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dulay @6.1    2 weeks ago
After decades of harassing clinics, doxing doctors, attacking doctor's families, bombings, murdering patients and clinicians and going as far as murdering Dr. Tiller at his church, it's hard to feel sorry for 'the other side' feeling threatened for once. 

This is true. I would still like to take the higher ground. The only thing I find ironic is that the conservatives seem to forget the things you describe above.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
6.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.1    2 weeks ago
This is true

I’ve never felt that empathy is hard, but we are all different.

The only thing I find ironic is that the conservatives seem to forget the things you describe above.

I don’t think that they forget, the strident on both extremes favor situational ethics.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @6.1    2 weeks ago
"Unfortunately, it seems some are taking cues from the 'pro-life protestors'. Let's hope they don't take it to the extremes that 'pro-lifers' have.  After decades of harassing clinics, doxing doctors, attacking doctor's families, bombings, murdering patients and clinicians and going as far as murdering Dr. Tiller at his church, it's hard to feel sorry for 'the other side' feeling threatened for once."

Yup, don't feel a twinge of sympathy for them.

And the alleged molotov cocktail found allegedly the left's choice - sounds like a right wing plant to me.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.3    2 weeks ago

Excuse me - that's in reference to another posters' 'article' here

"Early on Mother's Day they struck. They set fire to the Madison Wisconsin headquarters of a religious group called "Wisconsin Family Action." The group provides counseling to women. Flames were seen coming from the building shortly after 6 AM. The outside of the building had been spray-painted with the words "If abortions aren't safe then you aren't either." Police found the remnants of at least one Molotov Cocktail - the radical left's calling card."

How so?

Sounds like a right wing plant.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.4    2 weeks ago
Sounds like a right wing plant.

It always does to those on the left. Funny how they never seem to catch any of those "right wing plants" or "agitators".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6    2 weeks ago
On one hand, you have admonished pro-choice people that if they wanted to have protection, they should have made a law,

I'm calling the left out for their power grab. You told me a majority of the American public is in favor of legalizing abortion. Chuck Schumer vows to put it to a vote. If he can't get a law passed I want to know why?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.2.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2    2 weeks ago

Because the gop in the Senate will filibuster it...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @6.2.1    2 weeks ago

A bill based on the parameters of Roe would even garner Republican votes. I was told that the pro abortion side had a majority. If they can't pass a bill, then they clearly don't have a majority.

Beyond all that, Obama once had a filibuster proof Senate. Why didn't they do it then?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.2    2 weeks ago
Beyond all that, Obama once had a filibuster proof Senate. 

Any thinking person who is capable of grade school math knows that is BS. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @6.2.3    2 weeks ago
Any thinking person

A thinking person is able to recall events as opposed to googling. I know what you did, but it won't work because on 2 occasions Obama actually did have 60 dems seated in the Senate:

  • From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
  • From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
  • For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux

So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).



And 5 months is plenty of time to pass a bill.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.4    2 weeks ago

Well gee Vic, perhaps a thinking person recalling events would remember that Obama started 2009 with 58 Democratic Senators. 

Spector came on board in April 2009. That's 59. 

Byrd was hospitalized in May of 2009. That's 58. 

Kennedy was dying of brain cancer and did NOT vote after June of 2009. That's 57.

Care to refute that simple grade school math Vic? 

Your total of just over five months is BULLSHIT. 

In reality, Obama NEVER had a filibuster proof Senate. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @6.2.5    2 weeks ago

That's why I provided the link. For those who either forgot or are in denial.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.2.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.6    2 weeks ago
That's why I provided the link.

It's just more gaslighting.  Somehow a Senator who caucused with the Democrats and ran for President as a President  doesn't count. But, since I'm a fair guy, I'm open to any evidence that Bernie Sanders, and Sanders alone,  joined with Republicans to stop Obama from passing some critical piece of legislation. 

Or pretending that Byrd never voted after May.

Or that Kennedy wasn't replaced by a Democrat.

It's really embarrassing to see. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.7    2 weeks ago

She doesn't mention when those people were replaced. It's right there in the article I linked.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.2.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.8    2 weeks ago
She doesn't mention when those people were replaced. It's right there in the article I linked.

Blatant misrepresentation of sources is a problem on this site.  It always amazes me to see people double and triple down on their lies. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.9    2 weeks ago
Blatant misrepresentation of sources is a problem on this site.

It's really amazing. They simply ignore what's right there in the article. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.7    2 weeks ago
It's just more gaslighting. 

Bullshit Sean. 

Somehow a Senator who caucused with the Democrats and ran for President as a President  doesn't count. But, since I'm a fair guy, I'm open to any evidence that Bernie Sanders, and Sanders alone,  joined with Republicans to stop Obama from passing some critical piece of legislation. 

That would be relevant if there was 5 months of 59 Democratic Senators + 1 Independent. There WASN'T. 

Or pretending that Byrd never voted after May.

Who pretended that Sean? 

Or that Kennedy wasn't replaced by a Democrat.

Again, who said that Sean? 

It's really embarrassing to see. 

Your comment sure is.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.8    2 weeks ago
It's right there in the article I linked.

Then why would you expect me the REPEAT it Vic? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.13  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.9    2 weeks ago
Blatant misrepresentation of sources is a problem on this site. 

Sure as fuck is. 

It always amazes me to see people double and triple down on their lies. 

It does? Then why do it? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.10    2 weeks ago
It's really amazing. They simply ignore what's right there in the article. 

Actually Vic, YOU are the one ignoring what's right there in the article. You stated:

I know what you did, but it won't work because on 2 occasions Obama actually did have 60 dems seated in the Senate: 

As your link proves that the highest number of DEMOCRATS seated in the Senate during that time was 58. 

I await the movement of the goal post...

 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.2.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @6.2.11    2 weeks ago
at would be relevant if there was 5 months of 59 Democratic Senators + 1 Independent. There WASN'T. 

Stop the dishonesty.. 60 Senators caucused as Democrats.

The fact that the  2000 Democratic Party  VP nominee as well as  a perennial Democratic Party Presidential Presidential Candidate called themselves independent doesn't help you. They CAUCUSED AS DEMOCRATS.

Who do you think you are fooling with transparent  deception?  Why not be honest and explain the situation honestly  instead of  trying to mislead people?   

Your post 6.2.5 is so blatantly dishonest I'm embarrassed for you.  One can only Pity the ignorant people who fell for it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.2.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @6.2.14    2 weeks ago
I await the movement of the goal post..

He originally said "Obama once had a filibuster proof Senate. Why didn't they do it then?" 

you've offered  nothing to prove him wrong.

PS- Get a calendar.  Learn how it works. Then apply it to the information in Vic's post.   Then apologize for wasting everyone's time with your nonsense. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.17  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.15    2 weeks ago
Stop the dishonesty..

Fuck off Sean. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.18  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.16    2 weeks ago

See above. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.15    2 weeks ago

Know what is really funny?

The GOP has never had a supermajority in any of our lifetimes.

The Democratic Party appears unable to cope with being the majority, still unable to pass what they want and when in the minority, unable to stop the evil GOP from doing its will.

Why vote for members who can neither lead from the majority position nor minority position?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.2.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @6.2.17    2 weeks ago
Fuck off Sean. 

Stop  blatantly spreading  misinformation. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.21  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.20    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.3  Ronin2  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6    2 weeks ago
Roe v Wade was protected under the Constitution.

Actually it wasn't. Courts don't write laws; and that is exactly what the Supreme Court did in Roe vs Wade.

In the first trimester of pregnancy, the state may not regulate the abortion decision; only the pregnant woman and her attending physician can make that decision. In the second trimester, the state may impose regulations on abortion that are reasonably related to maternal health. In the third trimester, once the fetus reaches the point of “viability,” a state may regulate abortions or prohibit them entirely, so long as the laws contain exceptions for cases when abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

That is a law any way you look at it. The Supreme Court overstepped it's bounds, period.

And for the record, I don't condone this kind of violence, nor protesting in front of private residences. 

Yet the left continue to do it because they know Democrat politicians back them; and the partisan POS AG/DOJ won't do anything to them. Until people who back Democrats hold them accountable; these leftist Brown Shirts will continue to terrorize those that dare to disagree with them.

I do understand the sense of betrayal. 

Then I suggest you contact your government representatives at the state and federal levels and let them know that you want Roe codified into law at each level. The Supreme Court's ruling will not end abortion. Some states have snap back laws that will outlaw abortions immediately after the ruling. Others already have laws codifying abortion into their state's constitution; so they will not change. 

Don't hold your breath for either side to do anything on abortion at the federal level. Senate Democrats are preparing to bring a very liberal bill on abortion passed by the House that no Republican would ever vote for. Schumer knows it will never pass already; but he is playing politics to stoke up the anger on the left even higher. Don't worry, the Republicans won't do any better if they retake the House and Senate after mid terms. Brandon is still sitting in the White; and I am sure his handlers can pull his strings well enough to operate the VETO stamp. Congress has had close to 50 years to come up with an abortion law at the federal level. Each side has held bullet proof majorities during that time as well as the White House; yet none of them bothered to even try.  Their job is to get reelected; not to serve the people that put them there.

 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

"Lori Lightfoot, the Democrat lesbian mayor of   Chicago , took to Twitter Monday to warn others in the LGBTQ+ community that the Supreme Court would be "coming after us next," following the leaked draft opinion striking down the key abortion precedent Roe v. Wade (1973).

"To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next," Lightfoot wrote on Twitter. "This moment has to be a call to arms. We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory!"




The mayor of Chicago calling for violent insurrection against Supreme Court.


 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
7.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    2 weeks ago
The mayor of Chicago calling for violent insurrection against Supreme Court.

Really it's nothing new for the Democrats and the left.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1    2 weeks ago
Really it's nothing new for the Democrats and the left.

Correct. These violent groups like "Ruth sent me" and antifa and BLM are to the democrats what Chicago's "42 gang" once was to the Outfit. They harbor the violent terrorists used for intimidation.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
7.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.1    2 weeks ago

Ruth sent me, antifa, BLM.  It's telling that these bottom feeders ONLY show up when there is resistance to something the left supports.  And those on the left have been gullible enough to believe them.   

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.2    2 weeks ago

Anti-fa and BLM aren't protesting.  What are you talking about?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.2    2 weeks ago

A few openly celebrate them, others try a bit of whataboutism and most denounce them when pressed on it.

I wonder how they really feel?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
7.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.4    2 weeks ago

They've been so used to being told what to do and how to feel I doubt they can formulate their own thought process or verbalize an original, personal thought.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.5    2 weeks ago

I think you're right.

Have you ever seen the shepherd lead the sheep right into the slaughter house?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
7.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.6    2 weeks ago

Their actions are closer to lemmings.  One does something and the rest follow suit without thought.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.7    2 weeks ago
One does something and the rest follow suit without thought.

The Monastery of the mind. They may not have learned much math or science, but they were obviously taught that mob rule is the way to get what you want 

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1.9  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.8    2 weeks ago
The Monastery of the mind.

Are you trying to diss Saint Ignatius or Edward Leigh?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    2 weeks ago

She is right.  But she didn't call for a violent insurrection like #45 did when he lost the election.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
7.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @7.2    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
7.3  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

280365207_1108956216347474_1836181681188727833_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-6&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=HGsjer_UY68AX9YIS1-&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT_ZffGUg6rCC5kvAumU22bLemtR_OveTdLqhWP4OfS5qg&oe=62800396

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
8.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @8    2 weeks ago

I agree, letting men compete in women's sports is a disgusting war on women.

Did you know there are more pro life women than men?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9  Dulay    2 weeks ago
The problem with this bill is that it has a slick loophole included in it.

What loophole are you talking about Vic? 

After fetal viability, the WHPA would assure a right to an abortion whenever the physician’s “good-faith medical judgment” is that “the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.”

Gee, that statement is verbatim from the WSJ article. Shouldn't there be a link to that article in your seed? 

It neither explains nor set limits to a physician’s “good-faith medical judgment.”

There is a long understood legal definition of 'good-faith' Vic. There is no need to reiterate it ad nauseam. 

In other words, any perceived mental, emotional or familial factors could be used in order to permit an abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

That's contradictory Vic. You cited the 'good-faith medical judgement' predicate in the bill. That makes it clear that it isn't about mere perception. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @9    2 weeks ago
There is a long understood legal definition of 'good-faith' Vic. There is no need to reiterate it ad nauseam. 

Yes there is.

If a woman simply doesn't want the baby in the 9th month, is that a risk to her health?  Her well-being? Isn't it emotional stress?

If the answer is yes to any of the above, we have abortion on demand right up until birth.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1    2 weeks ago
Yes there is.

Then you admit that your statement was bullshit. 

Progress. 

If a woman simply doesn't want the baby in the 9th month, is that a risk to her health?  Her well-being? Isn't it emotional stress? If the answer is yes to any of the above, we have abortion on demand right up until birth.

That a galactic deflection Vic. 

You went from arguing the alleged vagueness of 'good-faith medical judgement' to blathering about a woman making unilateral decisions. That's NOT how the bill reads and your own statements illustrate that fact. 

So, please be clear Vic. WTF is your issue with the bill? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @9.1.1    2 weeks ago
That a galactic deflection Vic.

Absolutely not.  The vagueness of 'good-faith medical judgement' means just about anything can qualify as harmful to the woman. Some doctor will get to decide - based on what?  His judgement.

It's a fairly simple concept and you can't grasp it.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
9.1.3  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.2    2 weeks ago

“Some doctor will get to decide…”

As opposed to some legislator? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  afrayedknot @9.1.3    2 weeks ago

A doctor with no restrictions whatsoever.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
9.1.5  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.4    2 weeks ago

“A doctor with no restrictions whatsoever.”

Which is none of your business to begin with. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  afrayedknot @9.1.5    2 weeks ago
Which is none of your business to begin with. 

An abortion in the 9th month is everyone's concern.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
9.1.7  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.6    2 weeks ago

“An abortion in the 9th month is everyone's concern.”

It actually isn’t. Tell me how a woman’s personal decision in determining her fate in any way effects you personally.

Unless, of course, you are equally willing to have your private medical decisions determined by outside sources. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  afrayedknot @9.1.7    2 weeks ago

What did the Roe decision say about that or do you care about the decision?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  afrayedknot @9.1.5    2 weeks ago
A doctor with no restrictions whatsoever.” Which is none of your business to begin with. 

Are you suggesting that there be no restrictions whatsoever on abortions?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
9.1.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.9    2 weeks ago
Are you suggesting that there be no restrictions whatsoever on abortions?

I'm sure that afrayedknot would agree with state requirements on the proper way to dispose of the unwanted tissue.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.2    2 weeks ago
Absolutely not.  The vagueness of 'good-faith medical judgement' means just about anything can qualify as harmful to the woman. Some doctor will get to decide - based on what?  His judgement. It's a fairly simple concept and you can't grasp it.

The very simple concept to grasp is that doctors make those kinds of 'good-faith medical judgements' all the time Vic.

If not a doctor, who do you think should be making medical decisions Vic?

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
10  Thomas    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

You continue to do something that you have historically done: Try to paint the actions of the most radical (ie, those who commit illegal acts) onto the larger group (ie, anyone who is to the political left of you) . This is the logical fallacy of "One to Many" that reactionaries, fascists, or anyone who wishes to demonize and dehumanize another group of people have used, well, seemingly forever. Why? I guess because humans tend not to think overly critically because we are just too busy living our lives, especially if it sounds somewhat plausible and or reinforces that which we already tend to believe. 

Be afraid. Be Very afraid! Why? Say, "Vic sent us..."

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1  Texan1211  replied to  Thomas @10    2 weeks ago
You continue to do something that you have historically done: Try to paint the actions of the most radical (ie, those who commit illegal acts) onto the larger group

Ok, let us all pretend the left has not done the exact same thing regarding January 6, okay?

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
11  Hallux    2 weeks ago

Use prayer, if you can pray the gay away, you can pray the baby away.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
12  Sparty On    2 weeks ago

Assuming that a born, raised and practicing Catholic or other Evangelical is Pro Life, is a complete non sequitur. 

I give you Joe Biden .....

 
 

Who is online




35 visitors