Just remember what I had to explain to you and everything will be ok.
Leak of Roe Wade Ruling
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
People with incomes of $100,000 a year or more should be mandated to have at least one child per every hundred thousand dollars of income. That’s 10 children if you’re making $1 million a year. 100 children if you’re making 10 million a year. Mandate. Take responsibility for the nation.
Is that per year?
Jeff Bezos would have had a few hundred kids, just during the pandemic.
Interesting eugenics plan you have there.
or in the case of rich Republicans dysgenics.
In the case of Genghis Khan it was per week.
if you don't like how things have gone down since 2016, just remember that Trump never wins in 2016 if the DNC, Comcast/NBC, and AT&T/CNN, don't totally rig things for Hilary.
no way Trump beats Bernie, since Bernie would take much of Trump's base, while Hilary got none of it..
all those SCOTUS picks would have been Bernie's.
and sorry, but not buying that "thank you, may i have another", is the proper response to Wall St and big money's buying of the DNC, and MSNBC's or CNN's false flag operations that continue to this day.
this isn't rocket science, and everyone in DC knows the key to holding a majority in the house and senate every term, as the Dems did just that for 4 decades by backing the working class, and only stopped doing so when they stopped backing the working class, and started giving them the finger instead..
politician Trump owes his whole political career to that finger.
that said, the current Wall St owned national DNC, Comcast/NBC, AT&T, and Warner/CNN, all got what they came for, which is all that matters to them.
not for me, but you go ahead and go with "resistance is futile", "thank you, may i have another".
that's how we got here in the first place.
not how we get things back.
I am even trying to figure this out and will be more blunt. Pete was just given a huge job with a huge salary. So he and his homosexual partner decide to adopt children since their lifestyle wouldnt reproduce on its own , but yet they somehow felt the urge to be parents. Am I getting this right? Then while neither of them had any medical issues with the birthing of "their'' children by a woman that they would have no interest in getting pregnant on their own They needed time off from a job, not just any job but a really important job you are being pd a huge amount of money for. All the while that job which effects the whole country is in limbo?
Throwing all of that aside , Adoption is a great thing. I just have a problem when two males choose to mate with each other in a way that can never produce children and yet they want to have children? Am I missing something here? I am open to all responses . But think about it before you do. Two males that do whatever , do you really want to imagine our secretary of Transportation and what he does ? Whatever but then because his lifestyle renders him impotent? If he really has that great of a desire to have children go have sex with a woman. Am I the only one that sees this whole thing as crazy?
Given the left‘s propensity for violence & rioting during the BLM‘s terrorist reign probably necessitates a departure from that ruling
Come on man!!!!! You don’t understand their lifestyle that would make the human race extinct is normal?
Have police stations, other government buildings, homes and businesses been burned and looted during protests at Abortion Clinics?
Try not to worry. Heterosexual activity remains prevalent and is enormously popular.
AI is coming, though. And she'll never have a headache. 🤣
He sounded reasonable, but he wasn't accurate about the reasons for third trimester abortion. The reasons are basically the same as are given for having an abortion at an earlier stage - not financially ready, not ready to be a mother, etc., etc. Only a minority of those late-term abortions are due to danger to the life of the mother or because of an unhealthy baby.
I disagree. I don't think they lied. I think they truthfully said that Roe was "settled law" and that's true. Settled law from USSC opinions only means that they've been around for a good amount of time and haven't been overturned - yet. There are many examples of settled law (precedents) that have been overturned by the USSC throughout our history. Many of those decisions to overturn would be applauded by the left, middle and right sides of this forum. I listened to an interesting discussion about this between two constitutional scholars on SiriusXM a couple of days ago and they agreed that precedents like Roe have been overturned many times. They disagree about whether this one should be, of course, but agree that it's not unprecedented. They also agreed that the three most recent Supreme Court nominees didn't like during their hearings and could never be convicted of doing so under oath. I was listening while working so I didn't catch names, but I caught those key parts. If I could just go ahead and retire, I'd have time to listen to a lot of interesting stuff like this!
Holy crap. What? If you ever explained why you write in such a nonsensical style with sentence fragments, weird paragraph breaks, weird punctuation and lack of capital letters in the appropriate place, I'd never respond to a post of yours again. How about it?
Last edited:
Lie is probably too strong. They don’t and can’t be forthcoming.I disagree. I don't think they lied. I think they truthfully said that Roe was "settled law" and that's true. Settled law from USSC opinions only means that they've been around for a good amount of time and haven't been overturned - yet. There are many examples of settled law (precedents) that have been overturned by the USSC throughout our history. Many of those decisions to overturn would be applauded by the left, middle and right sides of this forum. I listened to an interesting discussion about this between two constitutional scholars on SiriusXM a couple of days ago and they agreed that precedents like Roe have been overturned many times. They disagree about whether this one should be, of course, but agree that it's not unprecedented. They also agreed that the three most recent Supreme Court nominees didn't like during their hearings and could never be convicted of doing so under oath. I was listening while working so I didn't catch names, but I caught those key parts. If I could just go ahead and retire, I'd have time to listen to a lot of interesting stuff like this!
Just now getting caught up from Wed posts in this thread, but I wanted to post this example of exactly what you're talking about and not have to backtrack to find it. Pete at his calm, measured and empathetic best. And I'll just add- oozing intelligence as well... So it's possible someone else has posted this (at least the speech itself) already. And if so, I apologize...
Pete really nails this, on the issue of not just stagnating, but actually rolling back rights that we basically have taken for granted for decades...He does a great job of making the average GOP politician look like an idiot, without really trying...
Pete shouldn’t lie which is what he did when he said don’t say gay bill doesn’t allow a kid to say that he went to the zoo with his two fathers. Don’t say gay bill is about curriculum, that is, what you can and cannot teach. It doesn’t slap a muzzle on the first amendment rights of the pupils. Buttigieg can be the best orator in the world but as soon as he adds a single lie into his speech he undermines his credibility and lowers himself to the average. He turns himself into just another lying politician.
I think the fact that it wasn't leaked till now just lends more credence to the idea it's a right wing zealot who is afraid that Kav or CB will cave and wants to publicly pressure them into not changing their vote. It wouldn't have been released in Feb when they were all in. Instead it's much more likely that there were whispers during the reconsideration phase, and someone see's their anti-abortion dream slowly slipping away...
Dems gain absolutely nothing by releasing it a month or so before the announcement. We all knew it was coming (the decision) and it's one of the main reasons I think the wing nut element on this board is doing some incredible degree of counting unhatched chickens (with regards to Nov) based on current polling. That and the fact that the effect of the GOP nominating multiple crazies needs to be factored in as well...
Here is a Fox Anchor bringing up the idea with Blackburn. She deflects and claims she'd be equally upset, but you can tell she never dreamed she'd face this question from the home team at Fox. And then when she rails against "left of center groups" putting funds into influencing the Court, a more astute reporter might have asked her why she's describing the Federalist Society as a "left of center group"? Guess she suffered a brain fart regarding Trump's list?
Last edited:
Actually the bill is (deliberately) written so vague as to be confusing about what it does or does not apply to. It doesn't just say a specific grade range like k-3, but also has much broader terminology such as "age appropriate" applied to all grades.
Since it basically encourages parents to sue teachers over any situation they find troubling, I think teachers are fearful that any mention of "two dads" might result in a kid bringing up the subject at home and parents without proper context deciding the teacher was violating the law and complaining. And even legal experts can't agree, because of the bill's built in ambiguity. This NBC article points out that the preamble is more drastic that the wording within the bill, but two different legal experts within FL offer differing views on how important a preamble is, with regards to interpreting legislation...
"In its preamble, the bill’s authors write that their aim is to prohibit “classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity.” But later, the actual bill states that “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur.”
Here's what Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill would do, and what it wouldn't do
Legal experts dissect whether the bill would prevent the “instruction” or “discussion” of sexual orientation and gender identity and which grade levels would be affected.
www.nbcnews.com
I have no idea what prompted this type of outburst, especially since all I did was post a video depicting the exact traits in Pete that Tommy wrote that he admired so much. I wasn't even much of a Pete fan because my singular focus was getting rid of Trump and I thought Biden was the only candidate that could do that. Haven't even listened much to Pete prior to watching that clip and basically, simultaneous to viewing it, I happened upon Tommy's post and felt the clip demonstrated exactly what Tommy said...
So I posted it as an illustration of Tommy's point, and out of nowhere you go all Barbara batshit Bachman on me? I don't even know what you're upset about, since I echoed Tommy's words and I don't think you attacked him. Not sure why you'd take it so personal and to such an extreme-?
I wasn't even responding to you, or to anyone in particular for that matter. I just saw a video which showed exactly what Tommy was talking about and posted it to illustrate his point. Really nothing else to it- just his rational, calm demeanor and ability to speak intelligently off the cuff.
Right and the preamble has no legislative effect. So it’s clear that this is instruction and that Buttigieg lied. Sorry to break the news to you.Actually the bill is (deliberately) written so vague as to be confusing about what it does or does not apply to. It doesn't just say a specific grade range like k-3, but also has much broader terminology such as "age appropriate" applied to all grades.
Since it basically encourages parents to sue teachers over any situation they find troubling, I think teachers are fearful that any mention of "two dads" might result in a kid bringing up the subject at home and parents without proper context deciding the teacher was violating the law and complaining. And even legal experts can't agree, because of the bill's built in ambiguity. This NBC article points out that the preamble is more drastic that the wording within the bill, but two different legal experts within FL offer differing views on how important a preamble is, with regards to interpreting legislation...
"In its preamble, the bill’s authors write that their aim is to prohibit “classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity.” But later, the actual bill states that “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur.”
Here's what Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill would do, and what it wouldn't do
Legal experts dissect whether the bill would prevent the “instruction” or “discussion” of sexual orientation and gender identity and which grade levels would be affected.
Getting away from his lie, just before he did I was actually struck by the point he was about to make with respect to the notion of what should be a normal occurrence being something that’s forbidden and off-limits. Then he blew it with his stupid lie. Very disappointing.
Reason for an abortion in the second trimester is difficult to get (per my understanding. It's definitely not a quick Google search) so I think he's just going by what is stated in Roe v Wade.
This is from an article with your same concern, that we are violating the Roe v Wade law for second trimester abortions.
'It is estimated that about 1% of all abortions in the United States are performed after 20 weeks, or approximately 10 000 to 15 000 annually. Since the Roe framework essentially medicalized abortion decisions beyond the first trimester, and since abortions in the United States are now performed on demand and only rarely for medical reasons which could end the life of the mother, what can we conclude about the value and impact of medical necessity determination in the case of induced abortion?'
The second trimester is a three month window so how much of that data is from the front of that window vs the end of that window???
I'm just talking about data. I understand that it could be argued that it doesn't matter as RvW state specifically.
But the is a big window of time.
.
Appreciate the post Cosmic.
I remember after the first couple of debates, Bill Mauer said something to the effect of 'there were 20 people up there having a food fight and yelling at each other but the one who was the most calm, confident and mature who looked like the most seasoned was the youngest one with the least experience'.
It just a different political style right now.
Another I think great example was he was catching up to Biden, so smearing Biden is typically the go to especially in today's environment. The right started their Hunter campaign. Pete's asked if the threat of investigations or even impeachment made from the right should be a concern.
I thought he was going to go for a traditional kill shot but he did the opposite, he came to Biden's defense again in a clear, concise way and with empathy.
I think it's impressive. I think he's looking at the game at a different angle.
Last edited:
You get that opportunity in the primaries, but once it's settled you're seeing what happens when you make a protest vote in the current environment.
Look, obviously you should vote for who best represents you....but that leads to the next obvious question.
If you hate the party so much and have no interest in supporting the party if you don't get your way....then why should the party support you?
You obviously want to use all of those horrible things you say about the party....the media, muscle and the money because we both know the only chance of beating the party that is most diametrically against your beliefs is having the muscle, money and media of the Dem party.
Again, I have no problem at all with your movement trying to take over the party....which is the primary process. Bring it, grow your movement so it's large enough to control the party.
Go out and get the votes.
After the civil rights bill was passed, MLK asked LBJ about the voting rights proposal. LBJ told him he doesn't have the power that he needs to make it happen as he barely had enough to get the civil rights act through.
MLK didn't storm off and publicly drag LBJ as a weak, two faced coward who is just another lying politician.
He went went out and organized the Selma protest (among other things) that eventually shifted public opinion...and gave LBJ the power to get the voting rights law passed.
That's how it's done. Trust me, once progressives start winning you see how quickly the corrupt machine will open it's arms.
You don't seem to be winning though. Nina Turner just got completely smoked by Brown for example.
Jesus H, looks like Hoopsier might of had a little too many this Friday night. Looks like it was a whiskey night.
That was a garbage post, glad they took it down.
The fact that you trigger so many people on the right even though you hardly if ever personally attack them means you're connecting, with receipts.
Lie is a pretty strong word.
Was it though?
His analogy (at least to me) was the 'weekend trip to the zoo' couldn't be discussed, not that it couldn't be stated.
So if another kid went 'why do you have two dads' or 'that's wrong that you have two dads' or 'my dad said your two dads are freaks and are going to burn in hell' or whatnot...the teacher has no power to step in because that would be 'discussion' that's not allowed.
Is that not correct?
Are you rating replies again ? Pete couldnt even run a town of 100,000 but you are in love with him we get it
The problem with this is that now we see what he is, another virtue-signaling politician who stays home instead of working. His only job is to spend a trillion dollars in taxpayer money and he can't even do that without virtue-signaling. Terrible. Stay at home Pete.
The bar is so low in Washington that if the person can talk without screaming and sounding like a raging ahole he's deemed competent. Pete has done nothing to give people belief he'd be a good leader. In truth he's proven to be terrible. He stayed home. The one thing we learn growing up is that you have to show up. Then add his race baiting virtue signaling bs and he'd be as big a turn off as AOC and the rest.
The only people I ever hear say anything good about Pete are on this board. I'd vote for countless Dems. Have in the past. Pete is the very last person from either party I would vote for. And in truth anyone associated with this admin needs to get out of politics. They've been that bad with their vapid virtue signaling.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
gameday crew already setting the table to screw us- Latest: Big Red Crimson Buffalo
-