OT POLITICAL THREAD(Jan 6 riots, etc)
- Thread starter mikalalas
- Start date
I see. That is why the left wants our courts to force legislation down our throats.
Like I said...all attempts at stopping free speech originate in leftist organizations.
Look at what happened in the Soviet Union and China as but two examples.
The 2000 elections? The vote count that Bush received was 537 more than Gore in Florida. Independent liberal news outlets confirmed this.
The left spent four years working on lies to overthrow the 2016 election. Remember the farce of "Russian Collusion?" They also suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story which would have changed the election results in 2020.
Go back to the left cheating in the 1960 presidential election in Illinois (Chicago).
"Chicago And Rigged Elections? The History Is Even Crazier Than You've Heard" https://blockclubchicago.org/2018/1...the-history-is-even-crazier-than-youve-heard/
The point is that government and private institutions have suppressed speech. That cannot be disputed with any credibility. Why is this hard to understand?
Ah...."Ed in Your Head"....can I say I have never seen someone who knows so little about me. I am white, I a secular, I am affluent, and I got this way because I live in Seattle. Like I said never seen someone with such sh!tty aim. BTW, interesting article you posted regarding blue counties. Montgomery County, know it well. Went to High School in Montgomery County. Outside of San Fran when I was living there wealthiest area in the country at the time.
But I must admit information I received about the affluent, 41% vote republican. So your numbers seemed a bit skewed.
And all dems hate the constitution. That took is a sweeping brush. I know many dems who have fought for our country, who believe in the constitution.
And what did you say about dems, you hate them all? Did I read that correctly?
And how did the dems try to spend four years overturning an election? You mean the impeachments? One was when he was voted out of office.
You have a twisted way of twisting things. Yes Gore challenged Florida in the courts. When he lost he conceded. He did not state in August the only way he could lose would be voter fraud. Which btw all his hires have testified under oath was BS.
But Clarence Thomas can move in on other rights. Gay marriage. Heck, as Save said he may ban inter racial marriage. That way he wont have to divorce that traitor. (RAT Republican and Traitor)
Matter of fact, maybe he will take away the rights of black men to sit on the supreme court. And How, the last two are hyperbole.
Last edited:
Read Thomas' opinion, and read what Alito wrote...At least Alito says it only applies to abortion.
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch told Collins and Murkowsky (SIC) that Roe V Wade is settled case law.
Ah yes…another good one considering your fan club is the model of fitness in our country as well. I’m sure we’re much more likely to see you training for an iron-man than crushing Big Macs with the rest of meal-team 6.
Please provide the quote.
By the way, John Roberts and William Breyer were both nominated by Republican presidents. They are suppose to be representing conservative viewpoints. Are they liars too?
I know that. Thomas is technically correct. Obergefell was yet another example of the court legislating.
Roberts voted against overturning roe vs wade . He voted for siding with Mississippi ‘s late stage abortion suit .
All I said Gorduch and Kavaugh told Susan Collins and Murkowski ….you can look up on the internet if really important to you .
So do you believe life starts at speed meeting egg? So are you ok with the morning after pill? Contraception ?
What legislation should put into law is make men accountable . Get a woman pregnant and you don’t fully support the child they have to get a state mandated vasectomy . They need some skin in the game too at this point .
Last edited:
Again...
"By the way, John Roberts and William Breyer were both nominated by Republican presidents. They are suppose to be representing conservative viewpoints. Are they liars too?"
Please provide the quotes of what Kavanaugh and Gorsuch said. It is important to cite your source.
Do you believe that a preborn human has zero value? That is a key question.
And do you believe that legislators should do the legislating...or should the court? Pelosi was protesting that she actually has to work to legislate. This is so absurd.
Can you point out in the Constitution where there is a right to an abortion? Even liberal Constitutional experts could not find that. So Ed...show us all how you know more than these folks.
Men who support abortion want to demean women. Killling one's offspring is a demeaning act. They also want to make sure they can have sex with no actual consequences. Some are also racists because the majority of abortions are done by black women. It is shameful.
I think you are an ex-Catholic, right? Do you really believe that God wants women to kill their offspring? That He deems it moral to kill the image-bearers of Himself?
Let me start with the easy one first You really want to use the God and morality card?
When Jesus was on the cross, how much money did he have . A nice 401k?
Do you think God approved of having a policy of eradicating he native Americans . Do you think God said the US soil was for just white Christians from Europe. Do you think God approved of enslaving beings in his/her image .
Do you think God thinks we should follow a guy who is an adulterer and bangs porn stars while he has a six month old at home. Or grabs girls by the crotch. Groped them. Made fun of kids with disabilities all because you believe in policy . Do you think God cares about our policies back how we treat people. You are ok with hating Dems , that is not what the Bible says to do about one’s enemies . And they aren’t even your enemies .
So please do not go with the “moral” argument with me . You elected and supported the most immoral person to lead our country, set an example for our youth .
I won’t go into the immorality of not protecting our youth because of an amendment written by people of their time .
In the Bible it says life starts at birth. Doesn’t talk about abortion in the Bible . Does talk about adultry, coveting thy neighbors wife … you know the things you apparently support by voting for the “policies”.
Contraception ok or not ok? Day after pill ok or not ok?
Abortion , gay, trans are all after life issues . Let their God deal with it , why have double jeopardy especially when 70% of the people believe in some form of abortion .
A
anon_1nb5kgc7kwlls
Guest
Ed...this is a very interesting response.
Do you know anything about the life of King David? I mean...anything? It's stunning your lack of Biblical knowledge. You are an ex-Catholic, right?
I'm not sure your point on Jesus and his 401k account. They had those back in the day? Please explain.
I hate Dems? No. I hate evil. Anyone who loves God must hate evil as well because God hates evil.
Psalm 97:10 - Let the Earth Rejoice
Hate evil, O you who love the LORD! He preserves the souls of His saints; He delivers them from the hand of the wicked.
biblehub.com
You never answered my question about whether a preborn child has ANY value. This is a key question.
Finally, preborn children are addressed in the Bible many times...
What Does the Bible Say About Knowing You Before You While In Mothers Womb?
Bible verses about Knowing You Before You While In Mothers Womb
Did you flunk catechism?
Looks like you did, but I forgive you.Ed...this is a very interesting response.
Do you know anything about the life of King David? I mean...anything? It's stunning your lack of Biblical knowledge. You are an ex-Catholic, right?
I'm not sure your point on Jesus and his 401k account. They had those back in the day? Please explain.
I hate Dems? No. I hate evil. Anyone who loves God must hate evil as well because God hates evil.
Psalm 97:10 - Let the Earth Rejoice
Hate evil, O you who love the LORD! He preserves the souls of His saints; He delivers them from the hand of the wicked.biblehub.com
You never answered my question about whether a preborn child has ANY value. This is a key question.
Finally, preborn children are addressed in the Bible many times...
What Does the Bible Say About Knowing You Before You While In Mothers Womb?
Bible verses about Knowing You Before You While In Mothers Wombwww.openbible.info
Did you flunk catechism?
Maybe pay attention to Ephesians 4: 31-32.
I'm not Catholic. But I have a lot of respect for Catholicism.
Those verses are part of a letter to the Ephesians. You understand that, right? Context matters.
It has nothing to do with addressing the killing of preborn children. Do you think killing, say, a 6 month old child in utero is moral?
Thomas is a tough one to figure. A Black conservative originalist? Following that ideology, he shouldn’t have a vote. Or maybe he should have 3/5 of a vote.
My bigger concern with him is he doesn’t appear to acknowledge any rights not explicitly mentioned. Gun ownership, sure. Privacy? Medical autonomy? Not mentioned, so no.
Him and Breyer are the ones that concern me. Thomas seems to want to hold rigidly to the language and intent of the Constitution, and ignore any changes or advances since. All guns are treated the same, whether a flintlock musket or an AR-15. Abortions are all the same whether it’s a 1791 part time veterinarian with dirty hands and a sharpened stick, or a 2022 surgeon and a fetus with unsurvivable defects. The constitution says guns, it doesn’t say abortions, nothing else matters. That position is untenable.
Breyer, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to have a firm basis for anything. Everything should be decided based on constant reinterpretation of the law depending on the total circumstances or the situation. That’s also untenable.
There has to be a baseline standard, but there also needs to be acceptance of change. The framers knew they couldn’t anticipate everything, and that there would be advances beyond what they could imagine. They couldn’t have intended for the Constitution to be rigid and inflexible. They also certainly intended for it to act as a framework on which to base decisions.
And they no doubt hoped that people like Thomas and Breyer would find a way to talk to each other and reach some sort of common ground. And that’s where they failed. They couldn’t imagine that if they could reach a consensus enough to create a new nation out of thin air, at some point in the future educated people in the most powerful country in the world wouldn’t be able to do the same.
Makes you wonder…given the option, would they take our leaders, or would they take George III?
"The constitution says guns, it doesn’t say abortions, nothing else matters. That position is untenable."
Why is this untenable?
Why do you and many reject the principle that legislators have the job of crafting and passing legislation and judges do not?
This ruling was correct on a technical and moral basis. R v W was wrongly ajudicaed and passed under a non existent "right to privacy". That is, as RBG and many others have said, a fatal flaw. Nowadays they'd attempt to sell it as a 14th Amendment issue (like they brashly did for Obergefell). Everything seems to go when it comes to that amendment....unfortunately.
Our framers were rolling over in their graves when Obergefell passed using the 14th Amendment no doubt?
Do you think a preborn child has any value either morally or under the law?
Teachings and verses in the bible are pulled all the time, to provide context.
In instances where a woman has an ectopic pregnancy that ruptures and now cannot have a emergency procedure to save her life, (one that is now unconstitutional in 23 states, and with no parental leave), and can bleed out and die - doesn't seem to be this is a very pro-life situation. Or does that context not count either?
You didn't answer my question. Does a preborn child have any value?
Yes, verses are pulled all the time out of context. This is a big problem. Those verses you reference were addressing a specific situation/reality.
The 14th is all about unwritten rights and privacy - except when it's not. Like a minors right to not have their locker searched. Yet the same child has the "right" to make their own medical decision to transition gender.
You've never answered mine in the past, which asked if you believed in a woman's right to choose - so great retort.
Verses pulled out all the time? Right, but apparently it's only a bother when it's not a convenient argument for you.
Do you hate Benjamin Franklin too?
A
anon_1nb5kgc7kwlls
Guest
Okay. I'll answer that question and then you can answer mine. Yes, a woman should not have the government dictate what happens to her body. But, you see, there is another body involved...that of the baby. That is where is enters a profound moral realm.
I provided a link that had a number of Bible verses where God recognized like of the preborn. You countered with a non-sequitur (verses within the context of Paul instructing Christian behavior within the church at Ephesus). How do those relate? I'm genuinely confused.
Finally, my moral authority is not BF...however great he was as a person. Who us your moral authority?
Yes. It's also amusing how the left knows exactly what a woman is too since Friday. I don't hear much mention of "birthing persons." 😉
Last edited:
We agree, a woman shouldn't have the gov't dictate what happens to her body. Also not a fan there's limited options that if pregnancy medical emergencies happen in almost 50% of the country, the mother likely has no safe way to survive.
I responded with a verse that is in the bible that discusses forgiveness. People may not agree with other's actions, but the teaching is to be forgiving. The bible can be interpreted in numerous ways - your Psalm verse says evil is bad, and I agree evil is bad, but in 2022, people have different interpretations of what is "evil" - and therefore we should forgive.
My moral authority is to be as kind, respectful, and sympathetic/empathic person to each individual.
It's untenable because there are many things the Constitution does not say, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The framers knew they couldn't anticipate everything, and they didn't try. They provided the very foundations that they felt were necessary based on their own experience and left it to people of the future to figure out the rest. They didn't intend for the Constitution to be the final say on everything, and didn't intend for it to be interpreted that only the things that were specifically mentioned were the only things guaranteed. Thomas' stance appears to be that if it's not in the document, it's not a conferred right...at least that's his position when it's convenient for him.
A good example (and also a good example of Thomas trying to have it both ways) is in the gun debate. People argue that self-defense is a Constitutional right. The same people argue that abortion is not. Neither appears in the Constitution. "Defense" (or more accurately, "defence") appears twice - once in the preamble and once in article 8 relating to taxes - and both times is as "the common defence." Simply put, self-defense is not only not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, it's not even referenced (and I would argue based on historical context, was intentionally omitted). The court has interpreted that it's included in spite of its lack of mention in the document. They've also found an individual right in the 2nd amendment, which I find convenient and I exercise, but I don't agree with their interpretation.
I'm not sure how you figure that I "reject the principle that legislators have the job of crafting and passing legislation and judges do not." My earlier post was about the judicial double-standard and the flexible standard of evaluation, it didn't even hint at my position on either judgement...which I'll do now. I think from a purely legal point of view, both decisions were correct. The court has no obligation, responsibility, or jurisdiction to make moral judgements. The NY gun permit law had an arbitrary and subjective measure for who gets a permit, and that's not OK. Roe was a perfect example of legislating from the bench, and also should have failed the first time it was challenged (and elements of it did come apart).
Where the conservatives lose me is this inflexible historical test. The idea that anything has to be "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions" to be protected is ridiculous, and the need to be able to document that tradition is ludicrous. Both of last week's decisions show a willingness to cherry pick which laws count, and disregard the rest. My favorite example is how in the gun decision, English common law is irrelevant and “evidence that long predates ratification may not illuminate the scope,” but in the abortion decision, there are several pages of analysis of English common law, British parliamentary law, and reference to various practices of the pre-Colonial era dating to the 1200s. In both cases, the historical analysis focuses almost entirely on the legal precedents that support the conclusion, and finds a way to disregard anything that doesn't. Others could do the same with most topics - there aren't very many things that have continued in an unbroken and non-diverging thread through our history. Thomas invoked common law for the abortion case because he could document that common law frowned on it, and that's as far as he took it. He completely neglected that it was still occurring widely, and nobody was really doing anything about it. Laws and enforcement didn't start coming around until after the Civil War, and a lot of those were due to unlicensed quacks who were doing them with spoons and sharpened sticks, killing patients, making actual doctors look bad, and more importantly making it harder to hide when a "proper lady" stepped outside of accepted behavior.
(Similar criticism of the liberal judges - in the abortion case, we need to cling to Roe because it's established precedent and we can't turn our back on it. In the gun case, it doesn't matter what the established precedent is, we need to discard it and reduce the number of guns.)
The 14th isn't really the issue. Its impact is that it makes the rest of the Constitution and its amendments applicable to the states. It doesn't - by itself - confer additional rights, it just prevents the states from infringing rights that exist. So, what "privileges and immunities" are conferred by the Constitution? That's the real question. If an act falls under those "privileges and immunities," states can't restrict them...and that's where Obergefell came from. The court has held that same-sex marriage, relationships (and contraception, etc.) are protection by the Constitution, so the state can't infringe. These apparently stem from the same unspoken rights as self-defense does.
As for what the framers would think...my suspicion is that they wouldn't be wild about the idea of the government looking into the bedroom. Franklin spent years trying to bang his way through the English and French courts, frequented prostitutes, was a serial adulterer, had at least a few illegitimate children, and had a generally Wooderson-like attitude into his 70s....all of which was out of bounds under the social norms of the time. Jefferson had a level of interest in his slaves that would not have met with social approval. John Adams had a son who was apparently gay. Alexander Hamilton had several affairs. That's just a few of the big names. My guess is that in general, the framers would be on board with the idea that the government should not involve itself in personal, private matters...and that it has no business in the bedroom.
A potential child has potential value. I've seen that even when it reaches 30+ weeks, a pregnancy is not a guarantee of a child. Even less so at 20, 15, 12, or 6. Before that, it's still not unusual for a woman to not even know. Legal value and legal protection is - for the last 3 days - even fuzzier than it was before. In some states, no. In some states, more than the mother. Moral value is not something I'm going to try to measure or impose on someone else, and I will fight anyone who tries to impose theirs. It's not up to judges to decide morality. Under our system, we allow representatives to participate in this, the problem is that too many of our representatives are imposing their own morality rather than actually representing their constituents.
My own opinion is that it most cases...there are other options. A healthy woman with a healthy fetus she doesn't want could give it to someone who does. Domestic adoption needs to be cheaper and easier. I would not presume to force any woman to carry to term in cases of rape, incest, unsurvivable fetal defects, or where the mother's life is in danger.
It's inconceivable that states will not allow the life of the mother to take precedence over the life of the pre-born child. Similarly for females who have been raped or victims of incest. I frequently hear of these relatively rare instances without the acknowledgement that a preborn child has moral value, just as you and I do.
In this debate I've been engaged in, just who am I forgiving? If a woman has an abortion that moral violation is between her and God and her and the father who may have objected to the abortion and her and the baby (which she killed). She'll have to answer to God for killing her offspring. The woman getting the abortion doesn't need or require my forgiveness.
As for you comment of different interpretations of evil? Maybe you can provide an example. The only evil that I know of is specified in the Bible. You get into dangerous territory when each person has their own definition. Then you have chaos and opinions only....not objective moral definitions. Identifying evil and hating is a different concept than the need to forgive. Forgiveness needs to be a result of repenting.
Okay...I agree those are good values, but that is just your opinion that those are moral values. They are not objectively true as moral values unless you are drawing from an external objective source. Many have a different opinion and reject your authority. That is when we have chaos in society.
Last edited:
Pretty presumptive to say the woman’s moral violation will make her answer to “God”. Look, I’m a Christian (embarrassed to say it nowadays) who grew up Methodist and I have faith…but 1. Freedom of religion is still a thing and not everyone believes in God and 2. You have no more proof in your God vs someone else’s faith (or belief in something else). I can see both sides of the abortion debate and I’m not emotional about it. The irony of your statement though in this context is the moral bankruptcy of forcing your God into someone else’s choices about their body. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, that’s F’d up and flat out un-American- We are NOT a “Christian” country.
Okay...then forget religion and God. I can argue it without that.
A killer who murders a pregnant woman will get a double homicide charge. The law recognizes that another human life was wrongly taken. A woman who wants to eliminate the life of her pre-born child can do that like it's nothing. Like it has no value at all. And there are no legal consequences.
That is incoherent.
Either the child has value or it doesn't.
Do you know offhand when the 14th Amendment was passed...and to what specific demographic it was directed?
That’s fair. As I said I’m not emotional on this argument either way ( which I guess by default makes me pro-choice) but I understand and respect both views.
Well if a woman or man kill themselves they aren't charged with murder. Or are they charged with attempted murder if they are not successful.
You ask the same question....do you consider it a baby once sperm meets egg? How about two weeks after sperm meets egg?
And then we get in the contraception debate. Is it attempted murder if one uses contraception? Or the morning after pill? Pretty gray and slippery slope.
Ed...you are delving into the absurd. A person who kills themselves should be charged with murder? I never made that argument.
I keep asking you and others a question that is skillfully being avoided. Does a preborn child have ANY value to society? Our laws show they do now (double murder charge for killing an innocent women who is pregnant). Please answer the question instead of asking questions to divert (like you did with avoiding defining a woman).
Like I've said before, I agree that a women should have no government tell her what to do with her body. The issue is that there is a body living inside her that has value which makes this a moral issue that needs to be addressed. Most all, for example, have a moral issue with killing a preborn child one day before his/her due date.
Interesting you cut out half of the scenario. If a woman attempts to commit suicide while pregnant, is she charged with attempted murder . ?
If someone attempts to kill a pregnant woman and fails, yet the the attempt either causes a miscarriage or still born , are they charged with one count of murder, second count of attempted murder?
You tell me.
Does the preborn child have any moral value? Answer that.
It's fun asking questions, right? Ed, you use that as a tactic.
Please tell me what a woman is? Still waiting...don't be embarrassed.
Last edited:
Does the “preborn’s” precursor have any moral value? Each one is a unique potential human being, just as is the “pre born”. Each and every time you procreate in your bathroom sink you are commiting mass murder on a scale that Stalin would envy. Make no mistake about it: you are going to spend eternity in hell for your actions.
Pimp, if that is the scenario of hell I think my friends would probably tell you if hell has a sink it will be a much more relaxing place to be….and I think they would make Stalin look like a pacifist …
Both questions are easy to answer, with some nuance. I already told you 10 times why you will not get a answer from me on the second question. You failed to live up to an agreement you made with me.
Let me give you the answer in a math equation. Those who are considered on the far right believe the following....Guns > preborn > children who are out of the womb.
Mine.... Children>>preborn>guns.
In terms of moral value, you tell me about life and when life starts. Three weeks? It is for a woman and her God (if that is her believe) to determine the morality question. Me, I probably would fight against late state abortions unless there are medical reasons for it.
And to be honest, even if I said sperm and egg have a moral value to me, not my call. It is an after life issue. See I think migrants coming across the border have moral value, don't you? And while I would like to accommodate all human life, I am a realist and know that we can't.
Latest posts
-
-
Update: Dickert taking control over Schmedding for OSU and WYO...
- Latest: Wazzubrooz
-
-
-
