Jump to content

Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery


bad_teammate

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

It’s weird how so many people in this country want to see their fellow Americans suffer,  I wonder if there’s something in the genes of those whose ancestors came out of Europe.  Obviously many of our ancestors bailed on Europe for reasons other than finding their fortunes, like maybe they weren’t getting along with the people around them.

Sometimes you gotta wonder just how much of what the Pilgrims said about coming here for religious freedom was really just that no one liked them because they were just not good people.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes you gotta wonder just how much of what the Pilgrims said about coming here for religious freedom was really just that no one liked them because they were just not good people.

This. It’s a big turning point in your read of American history when you realize the pilgrims weren’t persecuted because of their religion, they were loathed because they were total dicks.
  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


This. It’s a big turning point in your read of American history when you realize the pilgrims weren’t persecuted because of their religion, they were loathed because they were total dicks.

But they did give us Thanksgiving. Without Thanksgiving, there would be no Plains, Trains, and Automobiles. So there’s that.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a more serious note (yes pilgrims were dicks), the earliest immigrants to the US did tend to be hostile to one another:  English, French, Dutch/German, Scots, Irish.  They were not Ferris Bueller, at all.  Hell, western settlement was pretty much all about Scots, Irish and French getting the fuck away from all the Brits on the east coast.

We've hated each other from jump street, before the browns and squinty-eyed people even started to come.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

IMG_6211.png

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/13/politics/louisiana-bill-abortion-drugs-highly-regulated-medications/index.html

A Louisiana bill would classify the abortion-inducing drugs misoprostol and mifeprostone as Schedule IV controlled dangerous substances in the state, placing them in the same category as highly regulated drugs such as narcotics and depressants.

The amendment that would classify the drugs as Schedule IV substances was added to a Senate bill that would make it a crime to give abortion medication to a person without their consent.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican state Sen. Thomas Pressly, said he proposed the legislation after his sister was given misoprostol against her will.

Abortion is already banned in Louisiana with no exceptions for rape or incest.

The bill sparked outcry from a group of nearly 270 Louisiana physicians, health care providers and medical students, who signed a letter to Pressly expressing concerns over the reclassification.

The letter, obtained by CNN, says in part, “neither mifepristone nor misoprostol have been shown to have any potential for abuse, dependence, public health risk, nor high rates of adverse side effects.”

The letter continues that placing the drugs under Schedule IV would create “the false perception that these are dangerous drugs that require additional regulation” and that they are “widely prescribed and taken safely.”

Pressly rebutted the letter’s claims in a response he shared with CNN: “If enacted, this legislation would not prohibit misoprostol or even mifepristone from being prescribed or dispensed for legitimate reasons.”

“The doctors I have consulted with feel this provision will not harm healthcare for women,” he continued.

------

So some politician's sister was given an abortion pill against her will, which is already against the law, so a member of the party of small government wants to make it difficult for anybody to legally access abortion pills and throw them in jail for up to 5 years if they don't have a prescription.

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone imagine what it would be like for wives or daughters to have a crisis pregnancy, and to know that a) the medical community is constrained by a code of silence in terms of medical advice, and b) at BEST, difficult decisions might require an emotionally devastated wife or daughter to have to travel hundreds or thousand of miles to get healthcare.

I don't think men can fathom this kind of situation.

What kind of man would allow that shit to possibly affect their loved ones?  Let alone fellow citizens who may not have the economic ability to get beyond the emotional devastation?

I'm not a one issue voter but I certainly have a minimum requirement.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all men's fault.  I get it.  But at this point.  There are stupid women voting for cruel legislators to enact cruel laws to punish other women.  If they want to keep voting like this and have their daughters suffer the impact in the name of Jesus or Family Values, sorry ladies...this is what you get for being raised by idiots.  Tough shit.  I can take my daughters anywhere, anytime for any kind of medical care at any price.  Your mom is a cunt and does what she thinks your dad and pastor will think is best and either get out from under their thumb now while you can, or suffer the consequences.  You came into the world with the wrong set of parents.  I'm sorry for you, but I've done all we can.  Get out now or tough fucking shit.  You can move somewhere else and have a life for yourself or learn to raise a toddler you didn't expect because you were denied care even from rape and make meth to make ends meet.  Because the next 20 years are going to absolutely suck for you.  You'll have nobody to blame but your mother, father, and the illusion they cling to.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone imagine what it would be like for wives or daughters to have a crisis pregnancy, and to know that a) the medical community is constrained by a code of silence in terms of medical advice, and b) at BEST, difficult decisions might require an emotionally devastated wife or daughter to have to travel hundreds or thousand of miles to get healthcare.
I don't think men can fathom this kind of situation.
What kind of man would allow that shit to possibly affect their loved ones?  Let alone fellow citizens who may not have the economic ability to get beyond the emotional devastation?
I'm not a one issue voter but I certainly have a minimum requirement.
 

What kind of man you ask? An evangelical Christian kind of man. God has planned all things and knows all, so any suffering is part of his plan.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

What kind of man would allow that shit to possibly affect their loved ones?  Let alone fellow citizens who may not have the economic ability to get beyond the emotional devastation?

What kind of man?  A Republican.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, Lobo, a lot of people make a practice of venting their frustrations by writing them out on paper and then burning them. I feel like your last post could have been one of those instead. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, safe sex said:

You know, Lobo, a lot of people make a practice of venting their frustrations by writing them out on paper and then burning them. I feel like your last post could have been one of those instead. 

Two things:

  1. Ironic rant coming from a guy who spent his entire adult life until recently trying to get Republicans elected in this state until he realized too late that Trump and fascism were the ultimate fruits of his labor when he blindly supported them for networkin' and muh taxes.
  2. Blames women, this time, for misogynistic theocrats getting elected in Texas (normally blames Democrats) instead of the Chamber of Commerce-type Republicans he had traditionally supported when they were getting in bed with the religious nuts.

I know this is going to set him off, but he still refuses to take his share of the blame for his complicity in all of this. I've yet to see any contrition, only finger-pointing.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, safe sex said:

You know, Lobo, a lot of people make a practice of venting their frustrations by writing them out on paper and then burning them. I feel like your last post could have been one of those instead. 

I couldn't get past the use of the consistent double sentence spacing. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arizona GOP better hope this gets worked out, but the 2022 law is still on the books and not helping them.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/arizona-supreme-court-pushes-back-enforcement-1864-abortion-ban-rcna152092

Arizona Supreme Court pushes back enforcement date for 1864 abortion ban

The governor signed a bill repealing the Civil War-era law, but the new statute won't take effect for several months, potentially allowing brief enforcement of the old one.

The Arizona Supreme Court on Monday granted a request to delay enforcement of the state’s 1864 near-total abortion ban.

The court granted Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes’ request for an additional 90 days before the Civil War-era ban can be enforced.

Even though Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs signed a repeal of the ban on May 2, that measure cannot take effect until 90 days after the state’s legislative session ends — and it is still in session. Monday's court order essentially narrows the window in which the ban could be enforced, if it all.

“I am grateful that the Arizona Supreme Court has stayed enforcement of the 1864 law and granted our motion to stay the mandate in this case for another 90 days,” Mayes said in a statement Monday.

She also said her office "will consider the best legal course of action to take from here,” which could include asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

Previously, Mayes' office said the 1864 ban would go into effect June 27. The court's action Monday pushes that back to Sept. 26, her office said.

The enforcement date hinges heavily on when the state's legislative session ends. Last year, it wrapped up July 31. If legislators were to keep to that timeline, the ban could be enforceable for about a month — from Sept. 26 until late October — under the new projections. But it’s still unclear when this year's session will end.

With the enforcement delay, the state is operating under a 15-week ban on abortions passed in 2022 — signed by the governor at the time, Doug Ducey, a Republican — that makes exceptions for medical emergencies but not for rape or incest.

That law has prompted a coalition of reproductive rights organizations to try to get a constitutional amendment on the state’s ballot in November. The amendment would enshrine the right to an abortion through fetal viability and greatly expand the scope for exceptions.

The coalition, known as Arizona for Abortion Access, is on track to get the referendum on the ballot.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, safe sex said:

You know, Lobo, a lot of people make a practice of venting their frustrations by writing them out on paper and then burning them. I feel like your last post could have been one of those instead. 

Fair enough.  I was fortunate enough to be raised by women who elevated other women.  I promise you that Trump’s female votes will actually increase this year.  Same for Abbott in 2026. No rant by me and no pithy retort by you will change that.  There are 100 other factors at play here; but their inspiration to get female voters out to the polls is the most disturbing one of all to me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Can anyone imagine what it would be like for wives or daughters to have a crisis pregnancy, and to know that a) the medical community is constrained by a code of silence in terms of medical advice, and b) at BEST, difficult decisions might require an emotionally devastated wife or daughter to have to travel hundreds or thousand of miles to get healthcare.

I don't think men can fathom this kind of situation.

What kind of man would allow that shit to possibly affect their loved ones?  Let alone fellow citizens who may not have the economic ability to get beyond the emotional devastation?

I'm not a one issue voter but I certainly have a minimum requirement.

 

The thing you have to understand is that Republican men won't simply allow that kind of thing to affect their wives and daughters, they want it to happen to them. It's how they control them and it's proof from God that their control is righteous and the correct order of things.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2024 at 10:56 AM, UpperWestside said:

Sometimes you gotta wonder just how much of what the Pilgrims said about coming here for religious freedom was really just that no one liked them because they were just not good people.

That's probably a 20/80 split. My guess is they were judgmental pricks. England was glad to get rid of them. Got damned immigrants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's almost as fascinating as organized religion enduring today that despite their entire backstory being almost 100% bullshit, that these "Pilgrims" still dictate so much of my daughter's lives in our "Limited Government" State of Texas.  I am an educated man, pretty dumb, but well-read.  And I know more about the freaking Buddha and Shintoism than I do about the "Pilgrims."  Remember that book you read or college course you took about "the Pilgrims?  Yeah, me neither.  Because they're a fucking myth.  They barely happened.  Yet here we are, living under their thumb and brass shoe buckle or whatever the fuck is on that can of oats.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heard a blurb on NPR this morning that signups for medical interns across all specialities are down in states with abortion bans or heavy restrictions. Female doctors are staying away as they do not want to be tied down in states that might restrict their own family planning. These are of course, mostly rural states which already have an issue with having enough doctors. Oh look, it's the consequences of my own actions. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, all this ^

For 15 years, I've been sitting in academic and political panel talks.  And everybody said the same thing, "We need to invest more in training new doctors and nurses because the shortage is getting worse for Texas."  And they actually have.  More medical schools, more instructors, more resources.  But the states of the South growing in size forgot about one thing.  Once you educate them, you can't dictate where they end up practicing/providing care.  It's a pain in the ass for them, but they can go get board certified almost anywhere they want.  As stated above, we already have a shortage of health care providers in growing southern states, especially Texas.  Which will only get worse, and now these new series of anti-female laws going to effect.  Guess what?  The old people that voted for this shit, you're really not going to like what happens to your quality of care from here on out.  Good luck.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2024 at 11:25 AM, Brisketexan said:


This. It’s a big turning point in your read of American history when you realize the pilgrims weren’t persecuted because of their religion, they were loathed because they were total dicks.

It actually adds some depth to the New York-Boston antipathy.

The Pilgrims were dicks who got kicked out of the Netherlands because they were dicks.  So they went to Massachusetts, which was right near by New Netherland.  And the New Netherland Dutch didn't like those dicks any more than the Dutch in the old Netherlands.  Because just like old Netherlands, New Netherland was a cosmopolitan society built on commerce.  And commerce requires tolerance of things like religious diversity.

So when the English conquered New Netherland, the Dutch were very "fuck that."  The last thing they wanted was to be under the thumb of those Pilgrim dickheads.  Because among other reasons, puritanical dickheadishness is bad for business.  So the New Netherland Dutch negotiated a pretty favorable surrender by which the Dutch retain their freedoms, including freedom of religion.

The Massachusetts dickheads didn't support that compromise, and have always had a different culture from New York.

That Pilgrim dickheadishness made another appearance in the late 1760s, with their general freakout over the Quebec Act after the French and Indian War.  The Quebec Act allowed for freedom of religion in Quebec, which is to say that the Catholics in Quebec got to stay Catholic.  And the dickheads didn't like that.  And the role of the Quebec Act in straining relations between Massachusetts/Boston and the Crown is understated in the lead up to the American Revolution.

Boston's opposition to religious toleration, and New York's fear of falling under Boston's Pilgrim-dickhead tyrannical rule is a key reason why New York was pretty fucking Loyalist during the Revolution.  And you can trace that mutual antipathy down through American history clear through to today.

 

 

And fuck the Red Sox.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, HenryJames said:

IMG_6214.png

 

How in the fuck do you pull that off for so long? 

"Hey honey, will you go out to the deep freezer in the garage and grab me some shrimp and chicken wings?  But don't move the fetuses in there.  Well you can move 'em a little I guess, but keep the green peas on top!" 

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

It actually adds some depth to the New York-Boston antipathy.

The Pilgrims were dicks who got kicked out of the Netherlands because they were dicks.  So they went to Massachusetts, which was right near by New Netherland.  And the New Netherland Dutch didn't like those dicks any more than the Dutch in the old Netherlands.  Because just like old Netherlands, New Netherland was a cosmopolitan society built on commerce.  And commerce requires tolerance of things like religious diversity.

So when the English conquered New Netherland, the Dutch were very "fuck that."  The last thing they wanted was to be under the thumb of those Pilgrim dickheads.  Because among other reasons, puritanical dickheadishness is bad for business.  So the New Netherland Dutch negotiated a pretty favorable surrender by which the Dutch retain their freedoms, including freedom of religion.

The Massachusetts dickheads didn't support that compromise, and have always had a different culture from New York.

That Pilgrim dickheadishness made another appearance in the late 1760s, with their general freakout over the Quebec Act after the French and Indian War.  The Quebec Act allowed for freedom of religion in Quebec, which is to say that the Catholics in Quebec got to stay Catholic.  And the dickheads didn't like that.  And the role of the Quebec Act in straining relations between Massachusetts/Boston and the Crown is understated in the lead up to the American Revolution.

Boston's opposition to religious toleration, and New York's fear of falling under Boston's Pilgrim-dickhead tyrannical rule is a key reason why New York was pretty fucking Loyalist during the Revolution.  And you can trace that mutual antipathy down through American history clear through to today.

Dibs on "New Netherland Dutch Dicks" for band name and/or Boston Underground Sex Club.  

Edited by YGIFS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Arizona GOP better hope this gets worked out, but the 2022 law is still on the books and not helping them.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/arizona-supreme-court-pushes-back-enforcement-1864-abortion-ban-rcna152092

Arizona Supreme Court pushes back enforcement date for 1864 abortion ban

The governor signed a bill repealing the Civil War-era law, but the new statute won't take effect for several months, potentially allowing brief enforcement of the old one.

The Arizona Supreme Court on Monday granted a request to delay enforcement of the state’s 1864 near-total abortion ban.

The court granted Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes’ request for an additional 90 days before the Civil War-era ban can be enforced.

Even though Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs signed a repeal of the ban on May 2, that measure cannot take effect until 90 days after the state’s legislative session ends — and it is still in session. Monday's court order essentially narrows the window in which the ban could be enforced, if it all.

“I am grateful that the Arizona Supreme Court has stayed enforcement of the 1864 law and granted our motion to stay the mandate in this case for another 90 days,” Mayes said in a statement Monday.

She also said her office "will consider the best legal course of action to take from here,” which could include asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

Previously, Mayes' office said the 1864 ban would go into effect June 27. The court's action Monday pushes that back to Sept. 26, her office said.

The enforcement date hinges heavily on when the state's legislative session ends. Last year, it wrapped up July 31. If legislators were to keep to that timeline, the ban could be enforceable for about a month — from Sept. 26 until late October — under the new projections. But it’s still unclear when this year's session will end.

With the enforcement delay, the state is operating under a 15-week ban on abortions passed in 2022 — signed by the governor at the time, Doug Ducey, a Republican — that makes exceptions for medical emergencies but not for rape or incest.

That law has prompted a coalition of reproductive rights organizations to try to get a constitutional amendment on the state’s ballot in November. The amendment would enshrine the right to an abortion through fetal viability and greatly expand the scope for exceptions.

The coalition, known as Arizona for Abortion Access, is on track to get the referendum on the ballot.

 

I don't know shit about fuck, but I would bet a hefty sum that Arizona is going solid fucking blue this year.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, YGIFS said:

Yep, all this ^

For 15 years, I've been sitting in academic and political panel talks.  And everybody said the same thing, "We need to invest more in training new doctors and nurses because the shortage is getting worse for Texas."  And they actually have.  More medical schools, more instructors, more resources.  But the states of the South growing in size forgot about one thing.  Once you educate them, you can't dictate where they end up practicing/providing care.  It's a pain in the ass for them, but they can go get board certified almost anywhere they want.  As stated above, we already have a shortage of health care providers in growing southern states, especially Texas.  Which will only get worse, and now these new series of anti-female laws going to effect.  Guess what?  The old people that voted for this shit, you're really not going to like what happens to your quality of care from here on out.  Good luck.  

Lol, I just realized you probably know my dad.  He goes and speaks at a ton of Texas Medical Board and other governmental whozeewhatsits about medical regulations and other shit that I have no clue about.  But the idea of the two of you trading wits is fairly mindblowing.  If an old, bald, white retired doctor with a beard ever got exasperated at you for your shenanigans, I apologize.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

It actually adds some depth to the New York-Boston antipathy.

The Pilgrims were dicks who got kicked out of the Netherlands because they were dicks.  So they went to Massachusetts, which was right near by New Netherland.  And the New Netherland Dutch didn't like those dicks any more than the Dutch in the old Netherlands.  Because just like old Netherlands, New Netherland was a cosmopolitan society built on commerce.  And commerce requires tolerance of things like religious diversity.

So when the English conquered New Netherland, the Dutch were very "fuck that."  The last thing they wanted was to be under the thumb of those Pilgrim dickheads.  Because among other reasons, puritanical dickheadishness is bad for business.  So the New Netherland Dutch negotiated a pretty favorable surrender by which the Dutch retain their freedoms, including freedom of religion.

The Massachusetts dickheads didn't support that compromise, and have always had a different culture from New York.

That Pilgrim dickheadishness made another appearance in the late 1760s, with their general freakout over the Quebec Act after the French and Indian War.  The Quebec Act allowed for freedom of religion in Quebec, which is to say that the Catholics in Quebec got to stay Catholic.  And the dickheads didn't like that.  And the role of the Quebec Act in straining relations between Massachusetts/Boston and the Crown is understated in the lead up to the American Revolution.

Boston's opposition to religious toleration, and New York's fear of falling under Boston's Pilgrim-dickhead tyrannical rule is a key reason why New York was pretty fucking Loyalist during the Revolution.  And you can trace that mutual antipathy down through American history clear through to today.

 

 

And fuck the Red Sox.

Wasn't Rhode Island an outlet for this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Lol, I just realized you probably know my dad.  He goes and speaks at a ton of Texas Medical Board and other governmental whozeewhatsits about medical regulations and other shit that I have no clue about.  But the idea of the two of you trading wits is fairly mindblowing.  If an old, bald, white retired doctor with a beard ever got exasperated at you for your shenanigans, I apologize.  

I don’t think I know your father.  But I know a short, stocky, slow witted bald man.  Is that anything?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Wasn't Rhode Island an outlet for this?

Rhode Island was founded when the Massachusetts dickheads went full dickhead and expelled Roger Williams over his religious and political beliefs.  Among other unforgivables--and the Pilgrim dickheads had a long list of things that were unforgivable--he argued that the Massachusetts Bay Charter was unlawful because the Crown had not legally purchased the land from the Native Americans.

So Williams established Rhode Island, one of the founding principles of which was toleration of religious diversity.  

So Rhode Island was kind of a buffer zone between the Dutch of New Netherland and the Pilgrim dickheads in Massachusetts.  By pedigree, the Rhode Islanders were themselves dickheads.  But often they had been expelled because they either were too big of dickheads or too little.  And Massachusetts wanted only those who would be just the right amount of dickheadishness.  Even so, it was more closely aligned with Massachusetts than with New York in the Revolution and in subsequent interregional disputes.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2024 at 10:31 PM, Biff Tannen said:

Lol, I just realized you probably know my dad.  He goes and speaks at a ton of Texas Medical Board and other governmental whozeewhatsits about medical regulations and other shit that I have no clue about.  But the idea of the two of you trading wits is fairly mindblowing.  If an old, bald, white retired doctor with a beard ever got exasperated at you for your shenanigans, I apologize.  

This explains so much.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Rhode Island was founded when the Massachusetts dickheads went full dickhead and expelled Roger Williams over his religious and political beliefs.  Among other unforgivables--and the Pilgrim dickheads had a long list of things that were unforgivable--he argued that the Massachusetts Bay Charter was unlawful because the Crown had not legally purchased the land from the Native Americans.

So Williams established Rhode Island, one of the founding principles of which was toleration of religious diversity.  

So Rhode Island was kind of a buffer zone between the Dutch of New Netherland and the Pilgrim dickheads in Massachusetts.  By pedigree, the Rhode Islanders were themselves dickheads.  But often they had been expelled because they either were too big of dickheads or too little.  And Massachusetts wanted only those who would be just the right amount of dickheadishness.  Even so, it was more closely aligned with Massachusetts than with New York in the Revolution and in subsequent interregional disputes.

 

Somebody needs to create a color-coded map of the original 13 colonies based on level of dickheadishness. 

  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2024 at 10:26 PM, Biff Tannen said:

I don't know shit about fuck, but I would bet a hefty sum that Arizona is going solid fucking blue this year.

Here’s a poll showing Trump leads Biden by 96 points among Arizona women who say protecting abortion rights is their number one issue. - Surly probably 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

Here’s a poll showing Trump leads Biden by 96 points among Arizona women who say protecting abortion rights is their number one issue. - Surly NYT, MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. probably 

fixed

Edited by Biff Tannen
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, South Austin said:

Somebody needs to create a color-coded map of the original 13 colonies based on level of dickheadishness. 

costanza/ "It was a setup!  They were all dickheads!  It was fixed!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, South Austin said:

Somebody needs to create a color-coded map of the original 13 colonies based on level of dickheadishness. 

Wouldn't New Jersey win by default?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhode Island was founded when the Massachusetts dickheads went full dickhead and expelled Roger Williams over his religious and political beliefs.  Among other unforgivables--and the Pilgrim dickheads had a long list of things that were unforgivable--he argued that the Massachusetts Bay Charter was unlawful because the Crown had not legally purchased the land from the Native Americans.
So Williams established Rhode Island, one of the founding principles of which was toleration of religious diversity.  
So Rhode Island was kind of a buffer zone between the Dutch of New Netherland and the Pilgrim dickheads in Massachusetts.  By pedigree, the Rhode Islanders were themselves dickheads.  But often they had been expelled because they either were too big of dickheads or too little.  And Massachusetts wanted only those who would be just the right amount of dickheadishness.  Even so, it was more closely aligned with Massachusetts than with New York in the Revolution and in subsequent interregional disputes.
 
Roger and Anne [Hutchinson]
Roger and Anne got kicked out of Mass.
Moved to Rhonde Island and said, "Kiss my... knee."

It helped my 8th graders remember.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2024 at 8:49 AM, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I am at the point where I hope that EVERY single person that continues to vote GOP has something horrific happen to them or a loved one due to lack of reproductive care so they know the pain and suffering they are putting on others due to their ignorance, misogyny, selfishness, or hatefulness.  I have tried to stay above this, but fuck it.  And fuck you too.

Although, looking at it another way, this requires that these folks be sexually active.

I'd prefer that they stop procreating.

In all honesty, I do sympathize with this, but I wouldn't wish the additional heartbreak on anyone.  When you add in the issue of persons who are economically disadvantaged getting the quadruple bad news of 1) a genetic/reproductive issue PLUS 2) your doctors not being able to counsel you on your full alternatives for care PLUS 3) not being able to get local care and having to travel PLUS 4) not being able to afford that travel can care, it's just unspeakably cruel.   

I just had a stent put in. What would it have been like if my doctor had said "Yes, you have a clogged artery, but we don't do heart surgery here, I can't really tell you the alternatives, but I can refer you to a hospice.  Best wishes." And if I wanted a stent I would have to debate driving or flying to Colorado, with concerns that there might be law enforcement or MAGA types trying to stop me from flying or driving and then not having insurance to cover the cost of the care or fear that I can't disclose the care to the insurance company and little extra money for travel?

(When I was in college I was a young republican type and I actually wrote an op-ed for the school paper that was pro-life.  I had a fucking deadline and I was a thoughtless little sexist wannabe Dartmouth Review type prick back then and it's a pretty profound regret, even though nobody read it and certainly doesn't remember it.)

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope your stent recovery and reboot to life goes well, brutha.  Like you, I myself once dabbled in social conservatism as a young lad for about 20 minutes.  We are not special or enlightened, but we are different---many of us.  In that as we age and accrue influence and assets, a few of us have chosen to realize that kindness and service and love is so much more fulfilling than judgement and cruelty.  I basically went to a classical liberalism state of mind from my high horse of leather-bound books and rich mahogany surrounded by the greats Hayek and Von Mises, et. al.  And I was content to host Gary Johnson in Texas, and just aim for regulatory predictability, and just stay out of other people's lives.  

And then in 2015, two life-changing events occurred.  I had my first daughter and shortly thereafter the most misogynist politician in U.s. history (and that's saying something) came down an escalator and realized he could that the sexism wasn't the bug, it was the feature.  4 years after that, we had our second daughter and Greg Abbott and several other elected leaders decided for some reason that women have had it too easy for the last 100 years and dropped the hammer.  I am no ally nor saint.  If I didn't have these two munchkins to worry about it, if I'm honest, I wouldn't be that much engaged (I kinda sat out 2017 & 2018 anyway).  But the next 10 years are not going to be kind to women.  It's going to get worse before it gets better.  So I will stand a post.  For them.  For we've miles to go before we sleep, and many promises that we must keep.  Miles to go...

Let's go fucking hurt some people...

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...