Social Media, Woke Business and the Abortion Decision

5,499 Views | 122 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by LIB,MR BEARS
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?


Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing


That's one way to prevent unwanted pregnancy
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

Oh man, what am I doing to do now?




Who is this person? And which team is they on?
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?

Yeah you dirty women, just close your legs. So ridiculous that women just open up to any man on the street. Just stop being a whoore and you won't need an abortion.


Maybe instead of grooming kids with trainnies we should teach them how babies are made so they can avoid making them if unwanted.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Green Day star Billie Joe Armstrong proclaimed '**** America' and claimed he was 'renouncing his citizenship' in wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn federal abortion protections.

Armstrong, 50, made the declaration during a Friday night concert in London, telling the audience: 'There's too much f***ing stupid in the world.'

He also told the crowd he was going to move to the UK, a statement that was met with roaring applause.






whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

Green Day star Billie Joe Armstrong proclaimed '**** America' and claimed he was 'renouncing his citizenship' in wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn federal abortion protections.

Armstrong, 50, made the declaration during a Friday night concert in London, telling the audience: 'There's too much f***ing stupid in the world.'

He also told the crowd he was going to move to the UK, a statement that was met with roaring applause.




K thx bi
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

Green Day star Billie Joe Armstrong proclaimed '**** America' and claimed he was 'renouncing his citizenship' in wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn federal abortion protections.

Armstrong, 50, made the declaration during a Friday night concert in London, telling the audience: 'There's too much f***ing stupid in the world.'

He also told the crowd he was going to move to the UK, a statement that was met with roaring applause.









Oh no!!!! What will America do without their band?!?
Married A Horn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golem said:

Jack Bauer said:

Green Day star Billie Joe Armstrong proclaimed '**** America' and claimed he was 'renouncing his citizenship' in wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn federal abortion protections.

Armstrong, 50, made the declaration during a Friday night concert in London, telling the audience: 'There's too much f***ing stupid in the world.'

He also told the crowd he was going to move to the UK, a statement that was met with roaring applause.









Oh no!!!! What will America do without their band?!?


Same thing we've done for the past 20 years without their band.
Married A Horn

Hutto Hippo
Trinity Trojan
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Memo received: no Pink and no Green Day. Their terms are acceptable.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?


Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing
You lack of concern for potential life is far greater.

Prevention of human consciousness because of a standard of materialism isn't met is your stance.


Go ahead and post the quote from my post saying I disagreed with the decision.

I'll wait.
Honest question.......

A year or so back you argued that it really didn't matter much who was on the Supreme Court or which political party nominated whomever for the bench.

That all these individuals were more or less guided strictly by legal principals .

Still feel that way ?




Yes. I disagree with some recent rulings, but don't see any of them as being anything outside of how it is supposed to work.
So you believe this SC ruling would have been the same if Hillary Clinton had filled the 2 vacancies on the bench instead of Donald Trump ?
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?


Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing
You lack of concern for potential life is far greater.

Prevention of human consciousness because of a standard of materialism isn't met is your stance.


Go ahead and post the quote from my post saying I disagreed with the decision.

I'll wait.
Honest question.......

A year or so back you argued that it really didn't matter much who was on the Supreme Court or which political party nominated whomever for the bench.

That all these individuals were more or less guided strictly by legal principals .

Still feel that way ?




Yes. I disagree with some recent rulings, but don't see any of them as being anything outside of how it is supposed to work.
So you believe this SC ruling would have been the same if Hillary Clinton had filled the 2 vacancies on the bench instead of Donald Trump ?


Of course not . Elections have consequences. A consequence of the 2016 election was Trump filled three seats.

That is how it is supposed to work.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?


Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing
You lack of concern for potential life is far greater.

Prevention of human consciousness because of a standard of materialism isn't met is your stance.


Go ahead and post the quote from my post saying I disagreed with the decision.

I'll wait.
Honest question.......

A year or so back you argued that it really didn't matter much who was on the Supreme Court or which political party nominated whomever for the bench.

That all these individuals were more or less guided strictly by legal principals .

Still feel that way ?




Yes. I disagree with some recent rulings, but don't see any of them as being anything outside of how it is supposed to work.
So you believe this SC ruling would have been the same if Hillary Clinton had filled the 2 vacancies on the bench instead of Donald Trump ?


Of course not . Elections have consequences. A consequence of the 2016 election was Trump filled three seats.

That is how it is supposed to work.


And a consequence of the Obama catastrophe was we got Trump
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?


Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing
You lack of concern for potential life is far greater.

Prevention of human consciousness because of a standard of materialism isn't met is your stance.


Go ahead and post the quote from my post saying I disagreed with the decision.

I'll wait.
Honest question.......

A year or so back you argued that it really didn't matter much who was on the Supreme Court or which political party nominated whomever for the bench.

That all these individuals were more or less guided strictly by legal principals .

Still feel that way ?




Yes. I disagree with some recent rulings, but don't see any of them as being anything outside of how it is supposed to work.
So you believe this SC ruling would have been the same if Hillary Clinton had filled the 2 vacancies on the bench instead of Donald Trump ?


Of course not . Elections have consequences. A consequence of the 2016 election was Trump filled three seats.

That is how it is supposed to work.
Indeed

But I recall a discussion with you over a year ago where you repeatedly insisted that SC justices were above political bias and overwhelmingly judge cases solely on legal merit .

That it wasn't all that critical which president or party were filling the vacancies .
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?


Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing
You lack of concern for potential life is far greater.

Prevention of human consciousness because of a standard of materialism isn't met is your stance.


Go ahead and post the quote from my post saying I disagreed with the decision.

I'll wait.
Honest question.......

A year or so back you argued that it really didn't matter much who was on the Supreme Court or which political party nominated whomever for the bench.

That all these individuals were more or less guided strictly by legal principals .

Still feel that way ?




Yes. I disagree with some recent rulings, but don't see any of them as being anything outside of how it is supposed to work.
So you believe this SC ruling would have been the same if Hillary Clinton had filled the 2 vacancies on the bench instead of Donald Trump ?


Of course not . Elections have consequences. A consequence of the 2016 election was Trump filled three seats.

That is how it is supposed to work.
Indeed

But I recall a discussion with you over a year ago where you repeatedly insisted that SC justices were above political bias and overwhelmingly judge cases solely on legal merit .

That it wasn't all that critical which president or party were filling the vacancies .


The biggest mistake has been the Reuicans trend like with Hatch etc to just agree to whatever insane extremist the Socialists wanted to nominate. Like the geniuses Obama put forth. The the Ginsburg types and then you get the Kavanaugh / Roberts types from the Bush clan ideology. Those votes can almost always be counted in by the Democrats and the left socialist leaning ones rarely if ever take any remotely right leaning position

It's why the conservative court narrative is pushed so hard

We thinks the lady doth protest too much
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?


Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing
You lack of concern for potential life is far greater.

Prevention of human consciousness because of a standard of materialism isn't met is your stance.


Go ahead and post the quote from my post saying I disagreed with the decision.

I'll wait.
Honest question.......

A year or so back you argued that it really didn't matter much who was on the Supreme Court or which political party nominated whomever for the bench.

That all these individuals were more or less guided strictly by legal principals .

Still feel that way ?




Yes. I disagree with some recent rulings, but don't see any of them as being anything outside of how it is supposed to work.
So you believe this SC ruling would have been the same if Hillary Clinton had filled the 2 vacancies on the bench instead of Donald Trump ?


Of course not . Elections have consequences. A consequence of the 2016 election was Trump filled three seats.

That is how it is supposed to work.
Indeed

But I recall a discussion with you over a year ago where you repeatedly insisted that SC justices were above political bias and overwhelmingly judge cases solely on legal merit .

That it wasn't all that critical which president or party were filling the vacancies .


I remember the conversation but not that way. Maybe I misspoke.

My point was a belief that SCOTUS justices have sincerely held legal philosophies that they try to apply to the cases in front of them. Differences in those philosophies are going to produce different results. Those results are going to have political ramifications. But that does not mean the court is "political."

In this case, i have little doubt that all nine justices tried to answer the question "does the Constitution contain a right to abortion?" or, in Roberts' case, "do we have to defer to previous decisions that answered that first question "yes"? Those are legal issues.

As opposed to "should we have abortion in the United States?", which is a political question.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

Porteroso said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?

Yeah you dirty women, just close your legs. So ridiculous that women just open up to any man on the street. Just stop being a whoore and you won't need an abortion.


Maybe instead of grooming kids with trainnies we should teach them how babies are made so they can avoid making them if unwanted.

Yeah that's it, if 17 year olds just knew how babies were made, they would wait to have sex till marriage.

Really getting somewhere now! Women are whoores, teenagers just need to abstain!
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?


Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing
You lack of concern for potential life is far greater.

Prevention of human consciousness because of a standard of materialism isn't met is your stance.


Go ahead and post the quote from my post saying I disagreed with the decision.

I'll wait.
Honest question.......

A year or so back you argued that it really didn't matter much who was on the Supreme Court or which political party nominated whomever for the bench.

That all these individuals were more or less guided strictly by legal principals .

Still feel that way ?




Yes. I disagree with some recent rulings, but don't see any of them as being anything outside of how it is supposed to work.
So you believe this SC ruling would have been the same if Hillary Clinton had filled the 2 vacancies on the bench instead of Donald Trump ?


Of course not . Elections have consequences. A consequence of the 2016 election was Trump filled three seats.

That is how it is supposed to work.
Indeed

But I recall a discussion with you over a year ago where you repeatedly insisted that SC justices were above political bias and overwhelmingly judge cases solely on legal merit .

That it wasn't all that critical which president or party were filling the vacancies .


I remember the conversation but not that way. Maybe I misspoke.

My point was a belief that SCOTUS justices have sincerely held legal philosophies that they try to apply to the cases in front of them. Differences in those philosophies are going to produce different results. Those results are going to have political ramifications. But that does not mean the court is "political."

In this case, i have little doubt that all nine justices tried to answer the question "does the Constitution contain a right to abortion?" or, in Roberts' case, "do we have to defer to previous decisions that answered that first question "yes"? Those are legal issues.

As opposed to should we have abortion in the United States, which is a political question.
What do you politically prefer in regard to abortion?
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?


Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing
You lack of concern for potential life is far greater.

Prevention of human consciousness because of a standard of materialism isn't met is your stance.


Go ahead and post the quote from my post saying I disagreed with the decision.

I'll wait.
Honest question.......

A year or so back you argued that it really didn't matter much who was on the Supreme Court or which political party nominated whomever for the bench.

That all these individuals were more or less guided strictly by legal principals .

Still feel that way ?




Yes. I disagree with some recent rulings, but don't see any of them as being anything outside of how it is supposed to work.
So you believe this SC ruling would have been the same if Hillary Clinton had filled the 2 vacancies on the bench instead of Donald Trump ?


Of course not . Elections have consequences. A consequence of the 2016 election was Trump filled three seats.

That is how it is supposed to work.
Indeed

But I recall a discussion with you over a year ago where you repeatedly insisted that SC justices were above political bias and overwhelmingly judge cases solely on legal merit .

That it wasn't all that critical which president or party were filling the vacancies .


I remember the conversation but not that way. Maybe I misspoke.

My point was a belief that SCOTUS justices have sincerely held legal philosophies that they try to apply to the cases in front of them. Differences in those philosophies are going to produce different results. Those results are going to have political ramifications. But that does not mean the court is "political."

In this case, i have little doubt that all nine justices tried to answer the question "does the Constitution contain a right to abortion?" or, in Roberts' case, "do we have to defer to previous decisions that answered that first question "yes"? Those are legal issues.

As opposed to should we have abortion in the United States, which is a political question.

Super stretchy argument there. Whether a fetus has the natural right to live or not is inherently a legal issue, it's just that by definition the government cannot define that legal "personhood."

Politics can be about legality... They are not so separated.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?


Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing
You lack of concern for potential life is far greater.

Prevention of human consciousness because of a standard of materialism isn't met is your stance.


Go ahead and post the quote from my post saying I disagreed with the decision.

I'll wait.
Honest question.......

A year or so back you argued that it really didn't matter much who was on the Supreme Court or which political party nominated whomever for the bench.

That all these individuals were more or less guided strictly by legal principals .

Still feel that way ?




Yes. I disagree with some recent rulings, but don't see any of them as being anything outside of how it is supposed to work.
So you believe this SC ruling would have been the same if Hillary Clinton had filled the 2 vacancies on the bench instead of Donald Trump ?


Of course not . Elections have consequences. A consequence of the 2016 election was Trump filled three seats.

That is how it is supposed to work.
Indeed

But I recall a discussion with you over a year ago where you repeatedly insisted that SC justices were above political bias and overwhelmingly judge cases solely on legal merit .

That it wasn't all that critical which president or party were filling the vacancies .


I remember the conversation but not that way. Maybe I misspoke.

My point was a belief that SCOTUS justices have sincerely held legal philosophies that they try to apply to the cases in front of them. Differences in those philosophies are going to produce different results. Those results are going to have political ramifications. But that does not mean the court is "political."

In this case, i have little doubt that all nine justices tried to answer the question "does the Constitution contain a right to abortion?" or, in Roberts' case, "do we have to defer to previous decisions that answered that first question "yes"? Those are legal issues.

As opposed to should we have abortion in the United States, which is a political question.
What do you politically prefer in regard to abortion?
I prefer that women have the right to abort.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?


Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing
You lack of concern for potential life is far greater.

Prevention of human consciousness because of a standard of materialism isn't met is your stance.


Go ahead and post the quote from my post saying I disagreed with the decision.

I'll wait.
Honest question.......

A year or so back you argued that it really didn't matter much who was on the Supreme Court or which political party nominated whomever for the bench.

That all these individuals were more or less guided strictly by legal principals .

Still feel that way ?




Yes. I disagree with some recent rulings, but don't see any of them as being anything outside of how it is supposed to work.
So you believe this SC ruling would have been the same if Hillary Clinton had filled the 2 vacancies on the bench instead of Donald Trump ?


Of course not . Elections have consequences. A consequence of the 2016 election was Trump filled three seats.

That is how it is supposed to work.
Indeed

But I recall a discussion with you over a year ago where you repeatedly insisted that SC justices were above political bias and overwhelmingly judge cases solely on legal merit .

That it wasn't all that critical which president or party were filling the vacancies .


I remember the conversation but not that way. Maybe I misspoke.

My point was a belief that SCOTUS justices have sincerely held legal philosophies that they try to apply to the cases in front of them. Differences in those philosophies are going to produce different results. Those results are going to have political ramifications. But that does not mean the court is "political."

In this case, i have little doubt that all nine justices tried to answer the question "does the Constitution contain a right to abortion?" or, in Roberts' case, "do we have to defer to previous decisions that answered that first question "yes"? Those are legal issues.

As opposed to should we have abortion in the United States, which is a political question.

Super stretchy argument there. Whether a fetus has the natural right to live or not is inherently a legal issue, it's just that by definition the government cannot define that legal "personhood."

Politics can be about legality... They are not so separated.
I am not saying they are separated; I recognize that they are intertwined. But the question is what aspect of the issue does the Court address. If you believe the Court is "political" you would see Dobbs as a ruling about abortion. If you believe the Court is judicial, you would see Dobbs as a ruling about the constitution.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

The Supreme Court has now given millions of citizens rather than nine justices the power to decide whether to legalize abortion.

That's more democracy/representation. Period.
And we see how our culturally elite institutions are freaking out about this today.

Hollywood/academia/major NGOs/corporate media/ect.

They all seem to have a huge problem with decisions in a Constitutional Republic being made through democratic means..... interesting.

I guess whenever they said "Our democracy is in peril" they really meant something else.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Doc Holliday said:

The Supreme Court has now given millions of citizens rather than nine justices the power to decide whether to legalize abortion.

That's more democracy/representation. Period.
And we see how our culturally elite institutions are freaking out about this today.

Hollywood/academia/major NGOs/corporate media/ect.

They all seem to have a huge problem with decisions in a Constitutional Republic being made through democratic means..... interesting.

I guess whenever they said "Our democracy is in peril" they really meant something else.
What they really mean is they want centralization and less democracy.

They truly want authoritarianism. All major left wing movements end up there.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Porteroso said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?


Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing
You lack of concern for potential life is far greater.

Prevention of human consciousness because of a standard of materialism isn't met is your stance.


Go ahead and post the quote from my post saying I disagreed with the decision.

I'll wait.
Honest question.......

A year or so back you argued that it really didn't matter much who was on the Supreme Court or which political party nominated whomever for the bench.

That all these individuals were more or less guided strictly by legal principals .

Still feel that way ?




Yes. I disagree with some recent rulings, but don't see any of them as being anything outside of how it is supposed to work.
So you believe this SC ruling would have been the same if Hillary Clinton had filled the 2 vacancies on the bench instead of Donald Trump ?


Of course not . Elections have consequences. A consequence of the 2016 election was Trump filled three seats.

That is how it is supposed to work.
Indeed

But I recall a discussion with you over a year ago where you repeatedly insisted that SC justices were above political bias and overwhelmingly judge cases solely on legal merit .

That it wasn't all that critical which president or party were filling the vacancies .


I remember the conversation but not that way. Maybe I misspoke.

My point was a belief that SCOTUS justices have sincerely held legal philosophies that they try to apply to the cases in front of them. Differences in those philosophies are going to produce different results. Those results are going to have political ramifications. But that does not mean the court is "political."

In this case, i have little doubt that all nine justices tried to answer the question "does the Constitution contain a right to abortion?" or, in Roberts' case, "do we have to defer to previous decisions that answered that first question "yes"? Those are legal issues.

As opposed to should we have abortion in the United States, which is a political question.

Super stretchy argument there. Whether a fetus has the natural right to live or not is inherently a legal issue, it's just that by definition the government cannot define that legal "personhood."

Politics can be about legality... They are not so separated.
I am not saying they are separated; I recognize that they are intertwined. But the question is what aspect of the issue does the Court address. If you believe the Court is "political" you would see Dobbs as a ruling about abortion. If you believe the Court is judicial, you would see Dobbs as a ruling about the constitution.

I see. Even then, given the extremist views of several justices, it is still both. You can't convince me Clarence Thomas or Sotomayor voted on a purely legal basis. Several are biased to an unfortunate degree.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Booray said:

Porteroso said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Canada2017 said:

Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?


Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing
You lack of concern for potential life is far greater.

Prevention of human consciousness because of a standard of materialism isn't met is your stance.


Go ahead and post the quote from my post saying I disagreed with the decision.

I'll wait.
Honest question.......

A year or so back you argued that it really didn't matter much who was on the Supreme Court or which political party nominated whomever for the bench.

That all these individuals were more or less guided strictly by legal principals .

Still feel that way ?




Yes. I disagree with some recent rulings, but don't see any of them as being anything outside of how it is supposed to work.
So you believe this SC ruling would have been the same if Hillary Clinton had filled the 2 vacancies on the bench instead of Donald Trump ?


Of course not . Elections have consequences. A consequence of the 2016 election was Trump filled three seats.

That is how it is supposed to work.
Indeed

But I recall a discussion with you over a year ago where you repeatedly insisted that SC justices were above political bias and overwhelmingly judge cases solely on legal merit .

That it wasn't all that critical which president or party were filling the vacancies .


I remember the conversation but not that way. Maybe I misspoke.

My point was a belief that SCOTUS justices have sincerely held legal philosophies that they try to apply to the cases in front of them. Differences in those philosophies are going to produce different results. Those results are going to have political ramifications. But that does not mean the court is "political."

In this case, i have little doubt that all nine justices tried to answer the question "does the Constitution contain a right to abortion?" or, in Roberts' case, "do we have to defer to previous decisions that answered that first question "yes"? Those are legal issues.

As opposed to should we have abortion in the United States, which is a political question.

Super stretchy argument there. Whether a fetus has the natural right to live or not is inherently a legal issue, it's just that by definition the government cannot define that legal "personhood."

Politics can be about legality... They are not so separated.
I am not saying they are separated; I recognize that they are intertwined. But the question is what aspect of the issue does the Court address. If you believe the Court is "political" you would see Dobbs as a ruling about abortion. If you believe the Court is judicial, you would see Dobbs as a ruling about the constitution.

I see. Even then, given the extremist views of several justices, it is still both. You can't convince me Clarence Thomas or Sotomayor voted on a purely legal basis. Several are biased to an unfortunate degree.
They are biased. Thomas believes if the Constitution does not have an express and specific provision about the exact subject at issue, no Constitutional right can be involved. Sotomayor believes that one can find an answer to everything through what the Constitution should mean. Both are wrong, but those are both legal views.
Baker92grad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:





Who is Joe Goodman and why would anyone care where he shops ?
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We are swarming will all kinds of sporting goods stores .


Dick's isn't even a blip on the local radar .
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?


Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing


Garbage that this board is misogyny. Turn on any hip hop station or awards show. The left drives the culture, not the right.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?


Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing


I see you find biology disturbing. In your world, women should be equally welcome to impulsive and reckless sexual practices as their male counterparts, even if it means murdering their babies to do it.

Men are the gas and women are the brakes. That's biologically driven. It's not new in the world and it's not bad. We see what disasters transpire when there aren't any brakes simply by looking at the rampant disease spread amongst the gay male community. Nature or nature's God designed us this way. It's not misogynistic or a caveman mentality to point out biological realities.

Women aren't men. They have a different calculus by which to navigate their lives. When we try and make them like men (or men like women), nothing good comes of it. We see infanticide and disease explode.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Employees act like their employer is their Mommy and Daddy.



LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Baker92grad said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:





Who is Joe Goodman and why would anyone care where he shops ?
I believe he writes for Our Daily Bears
Proud 1992 Alum
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Disappointing that Joe G. decided to use a popular Christian saying to show his support for Dick's.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Proud 1992 Alum said:

Disappointing that Joe G. decided to use a popular Christian saying to show his support for Dick's.


Of
Course support for Dick's is what causes this problem in the first place. If Pride month could do it's job better we'd not have the same issue
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golem said:

Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?


Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing


I see you find biology disturbing. In your world, women should be equally welcome to impulsive and reckless sexual practices as their male counterparts, even if it means murdering their babies to do it.

Men are the gas and women are the brakes. That's biologically driven. It's not new in the world and it's not bad. We see what disasters transpire when there aren't any brakes simply by looking at the rampant disease spread amongst the gay male community. Nature or nature's God designed us this way. It's not misogynistic or a caveman mentality to point out biological realities.

Women aren't men. They have a different calculus by which to navigate their lives. When we try and make them like men (or men like women), nothing good comes of it. We see infanticide and disease explode.


Keep'em in the kitchen and it all works out for you.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Golem said:

Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?

Where did you read that?
Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing


I see you find biology disturbing. In your world, women should be equally welcome to impulsive and reckless sexual practices as their male counterparts, even if it means murdering their babies to do it.

Men are the gas and women are the brakes. That's biologically driven. It's not new in the world and it's not bad. We see what disasters transpire when there aren't any brakes simply by looking at the rampant disease spread amongst the gay male community. Nature or nature's God designed us this way. It's not misogynistic or a caveman mentality to point out biological realities.

Women aren't men. They have a different calculus by which to navigate their lives. When we try and make them like men (or men like women), nothing good comes of it. We see infanticide and disease explode.


Keep in the kitchen and it all works out for you.
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Golem said:

Booray said:

He Hate Me said:

Booray said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Maybe just coach them to keep their legs closed instead?


Cavemen are so funny.


Self control: It's not just for cavemen anymore.


Apparently, cavemen don't have to worry about self control. It's on the cave women.

The general lack of concern for women on these threads borders on misogyny. Fits squarely in the A-hole category though. And is so far from Christian it's not worth discussing


I see you find biology disturbing. In your world, women should be equally welcome to impulsive and reckless sexual practices as their male counterparts, even if it means murdering their babies to do it.

Men are the gas and women are the brakes. That's biologically driven. It's not new in the world and it's not bad. We see what disasters transpire when there aren't any brakes simply by looking at the rampant disease spread amongst the gay male community. Nature or nature's God designed us this way. It's not misogynistic or a caveman mentality to point out biological realities.

Women aren't men. They have a different calculus by which to navigate their lives. When we try and make them like men (or men like women), nothing good comes of it. We see infanticide and disease explode.


Keep in the kitchen and it all works out for you.


Or don't murder your baby so you can keep sleeping around. Start with that one.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.