Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

Stats, number of abortions someone has had, etc is all filler. The bottom line is that no one has access to use your body without consent. Not the government, not a fetus, not a doctor - no one. That’s what is on the chopping block.

That goes away and Pandora’s box opens for government fuckery.

Yeah, but think of all the liberal tears to be had as we descend into fascism!

Edited by gmr548
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this isn’t your primary point, but that’s precisely why some people came to the New World: they not only wanted to escape persecution, they wanted to establish their own religion as official. Roger Williams in Rhode Island stands out as the early exception. Religious freedom as we think of it was foreign to them.

Pilgrims called it fear of religious persecution. John Pym had no qualms about making fake news reports about Irish killing protestants and causing real slaughter against the Irish Catholics. He also found out that killing a King has consequences and they got the heck out if Dodge after people didn’t flock to their brand of religious extremism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, wearing masks during a pandemic in an enclosed steel tube is a violation of personal freedoms but it’s ok to tell women that it’s murder to terminate an early pregnancy or even try to prevent it with birth control?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think that ocp should be illegal, but I am also not the one telling people here that it increases cardiac risk as a smoke screen for aborting fetuses. 

Nobody’s end goal in any of this is to “abort more fetuses.” For fuck’s sake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And anyone crying about being ganged up on in CR wasn’t around much on TOS when Swam and company were slinging PizzaGate and other assorted bullshit, jumping on anyone who dared to disagree that Obama was ‘ruining our country’. 

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

I guess I don't understand the Republican desire for freedom for corporations (they agree with), and businesses  (they agree with), yet feel the need for old white men to spearhead decision making on the medical care of women in our country.

I guess sort of like Alito's misguided opinion, they actually do believe that decisions can be made in a vacuum.  The ability to lie to oneself is now the most critical part of Republican thinking, from the working class voter, to nearly every elected Republican in national office, all the way up to lifetime appointed nefariously appointed Supreme Court members.

And that would make our Founders both cry and cringe.

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

23 minutes ago, Homercles said:

And anyone crying about being ganged up on in CR wasn’t around much on TOS when Swam and company were slinging PizzaGate and other assorted bullshit, jumping on anyone who dared to disagree that Obama was ‘ruining our country’. 

The pendulum has swung the other way now, which usually happens during a correction. Eventually it will swing back towards the middle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

Alito citing Hale is also really, really disturbing…. Unless you’re a white Christian male extremist, then you’re probably good with women being property.

What? You don't believe in witches? Pfff

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

7 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Ask the poster that asserted that "birth control can lead to increased risk of heart disease" what the estimates of excess CV related morality are?  And maybe to contrast them with the excess morbidity and mortality related to serial abortions? 

Link the post and we can discuss it. In the meantime, why don’t you address the questions I asked you instead of deflecting? I’m really not sure why you think any of us think that it is a mainstream opinion to advocate for serial abortion over oral contraceptive use or that we would try and defend that stance.  It’s pretty ridiculous that that would be some kind of counter to what I have been saying. Again, you cannot have a reasonable argument when one side wants to put your daughter in jail for having an IUD. 

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

3 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

The pendulum has swung the other way now, which usually happens during a correction. Eventually it will swing back towards the middle. 

Lol, equivocating rage over the rescinding of women's rights to the fucking pizzagate conspiracy and early qanon horseshit.

Stay golden, galaxy brain

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

5 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

The pendulum has swung the other way now, which usually happens during a correction. Eventually it will swing back towards the middle. 

Sorry, are you saying that spewing conspiracy bullshit like Pizzagate is one end of two extremes, and that supporting a woman’s right to choose is the other end?  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Homercles said:

So, wearing masks during a pandemic in an enclosed steel tube is a violation of personal freedoms but it’s ok to tell women that it’s murder to terminate an early pregnancy or even try to prevent it with birth control?

Yes. Absolutely, unironically correct.

 

5 minutes ago, horn4life said:

I guess I don't understand the Republican desire for freedom for corporations (they agree with), and businesses  (they agree with), yet feel the need for old white men to spearhead decision making on the medical care of women in our country.

I guess sort of like Alito's misguided opinion, they actually do believe that decisions can be made in a vacuum.  The ability to lie to oneself is now the most critical part of Republican thinking, from the working class voter, to nearly every elected Republican in national office, all the way up to lifetime appointed nefariously appointed Supreme Court members.

And that would make our Founders both cry and cringe.

No it wouldn't. To them, black people were less than fully human and women were to be seen, not heard. This country was founded as a codified oligarchy of wealthy, property-owning, white, Christian men, and the GOP's "originalism" is about getting as close to that ideal as possible.

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

13 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

A non-fertilized egg?  Yep.

A fertilized egg?  Nope.

No one is saying that having a period is killing a child.  It's a non-fertilized egg.

You are tripling down on stupid. There is no non-religious basis for an argument that a fertilized egg is a  child. Go fuck yourself

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

So the pendulum swing to the left after the most divisive US president in modern history, was electing *checks notes* Joe Biden... and a split Congress? So this undoing of 50 years of freedom that multiple generations of young people have enjoyed was a "predictable correction to the middle"? 1 in 5 people, tops, want what's coming to states like Texas. Middle.

 

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

9 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Yes. Absolutely, unironically correct.

 

No it wouldn't. To them, black people were less than fully human and women were to be seen, not heard. This country was founded as a codified oligarchy of wealthy, property-owning, white, Christian men, and the GOP's "originalism" is about getting as close to that ideal as possible.

It's so comical that some conservatives are so deluded as to actually believe that "originalism" does not provide judges with the same cover to do whatever the fuck they want as any other heuristic for interpreting the US constitution.  At this point it would only be mildly surprising to see one of  Dinesh D'Souza's "history" books being cited in a majority opinion.

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

26 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

The pendulum has swung the other way now, which usually happens during a correction. Eventually it will swing back towards the middle. 

nah, what happened is that neg rep is worth the same as pos rep.  on the old board software it was 1/10 or a 30th or some other shit.  so a neg rep train just didn't make a shit on the old one, so long as there was any pos rep coming.  so swam and co could neg and get negged and since it only took like 1 other to create a circlejerk back then it was almost impossible to neg someone to bolivia. 

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Lol, equivocating rage over the rescinding of women's rights to the fucking pizzagate conspiracy and early qanon horseshit.

Stay golden, galaxy brain

Again with the insults, I’m close to calling of the truce. 
 

I didn’t think that it needed to be stated that it was a comment about the board in general, rather than this particular discussion on abortion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Planet Houston said:

Sorry, are you saying that spewing conspiracy bullshit like Pizzagate is one end of two extremes, and that supporting a woman’s right to choose is the other end?  

Did you not read the comment I quoted? It was about being ganged up on for your views in this forum. Google context clues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Poe It Up said:

Did you not read the comment I quoted? It was about being ganged up on for your views in this forum. Google context clues. 

The only person that really seems to neg over respectfully presented supported opinions is Penelope. She goes scorched earth. Just read the room rather than bitching about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Starfleet Command said:

It's so comical that some conservatives are so deluded as to actually believe that "originalism" does not provide judges with the same cover to do whatever the fuck they want as any other heuristic for interpreting the US constitution.  At this point it would only be mildly surprising to see one of  Dinesh D'Souza's "history" books being cited in a majority opinion.

This is a bit of an aside, but a sixth circuit panel recently cited Bari Weiss’ substack in a decision granting qualified immunity to cops who very clearly violated the first amendment by arresting a guy who ran a parody Facebook page they didn’t like.

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

44 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

Alito citing Hale is also really, really disturbing…. Unless you’re a white Christian male extremist, then you’re probably good with women being property.

Was it equally disturbing when Blackmun cited Hale in Roe v. Wade?

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

5 minutes ago, Planet Houston said:

You’re correct - this board has “swung” to the “left” as the GOP and those who support today’s version of it have become Christofascist. 

Where you’re wrong is that it ain’t coming back. Y’all are way too fucking gone. 

You’re being dramatic. But that’s the beauty of the anonymity that comes with the internet, it allows one to express their viewpoint in a decidedly more strident fashion. 

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

You’re being dramatic. But that’s the beauty of the anonymity that comes with the internet, it allows one to express their viewpoint in a decidedly more strident fashion. 

There is legislation in Louisiana up for a vote that would make having an abortion in the first weeks of gestation felony murder. We are moving towards a theocracy. 

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

8 minutes ago, B00M said:

The only person that really seems to neg over respectfully presented supported opinions is Penelope. She goes scorched earth. Just read the room rather than bitching about it.

Having been on the receiving end, I know it’s far more than that; however, I’m sympathetic to your viewpoint that nobody likes a whiner. 

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

1 hour ago, Goofyboy said:

Stats, number of abortions someone has had, etc is all filler. The bottom line is that no one has access to use your body without consent. Not the government, not a fetus, not a doctor - no one. That’s what is on the chopping block.

That goes away and Pandora’s box opens for government fuckery.

Pretend it's Carter Page that needs an abortion. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

You’re being dramatic. But that’s the beauty of the anonymity that comes with the internet, it allows one to express their viewpoint in a decidedly more strident fashion. 

I am not being dramatic whatsoever. Please tell me what was sensationalized. I’d love to hear how I’m wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, B00M said:

The only person that really seems to neg over respectfully presented supported opinions is Penelope. She goes scorched earth. Just read the room rather than bitching about it.

Ana, Ag with Kids, and Johnny Sack are not respectfully presenting supported opinions.  They are trolls, misogynists, and anti-American.  There is ZERO point in engaging.  Neg them and move on.

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

20 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

You’re being dramatic. But that’s the beauty of the anonymity that comes with the internet, it allows one to express their viewpoint in a decidedly more strident fashion. 

This is dramatic because we are being threatened with the greatest contraction of the rights of women ever.  I know, you are a man, so we are being dramatic for wanting autonomy over our bodies.

Victoria Beckham Eye Roll GIF

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

1 hour ago, Planet Houston said:

Nobody’s end goal in any of this is to “abort more fetuses.” For fuck’s sake. 

That’s all part of the act. They absolutely have to distort the opposition in order to hope it’ll bring credibility to their position.

But it doesn’t really work that way in reality.

If it’s my position, for example, that KBJ’s nomination is going to spell doom for America because the floodgates of kindergarten teachers lecturing 5 year olds about transgender issues and critical race theory, and that anyone who opposes me is a pedophile, I’m either an asshole, insane, or insanely stupid.

Any which way, I wouldn’t have either a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out just because I falsely accused the “other side” of wanting to fuck children. This is seriously how low mainstream discourse has gotten, and @Anastasis feeds right into it.

Just now, wildcat09 said:

The other "rational, good faith" conservatives have learned from Ana to just never say what they believe except that they think everyone else is too emotional. 

Again, part of the act.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, please do discuss the underlined.  And realize that a key element here is NOT that Roe was about abortion, but rather....about the right to privacy and the rights of individuals to make their own decisions about their own bodies/bodily autonomy.  For example, do you have a problem with Griswold, which is based on the same right to privacy?  How about Lawrence v. Texas?  How about Obergefell, and Loving, which are similarly grounded?

Alito and his GQP minions have told us what overturning Roe is really about: CONTROL.  When people tell you who they are, you should believe them.  Read the opinion.  Then watch what GQP leaders are scrambling to do nationwide in the wake of the opinion: It is about controlling any number of your private, personal decisions and activities.   Shit, damned near all of them.  No "right to privacy" about personal decisions in your home means that the government can make decisions -- including forbidding certain options/behaviors -- with respect to contraception, your sexual activities, shit, your food choices, you name it, it's now not off limits to government regulation.   SPOILER: Roe is only nominally about "abortion."  "Abortion" is a stalking horse for "government control of your private life."  THAT IS THE STORY HERE.  THE STORY IS NOT ABORTION.  THE STORY IS THE DOOR NOW BEING WIDE OPEN TO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF YOUR PRIVATE LIFE.

So, yes, "legal solutions" -- including protecting certain rights -- fucking matter.  They are what stand in between the ability of angry and frustrated neanderthals imposing their retrograde will on others by force of law.

So tell us, do you think that Griswold and Lawrence, for example, are also not "good rulings?"

Annie's entire professional career is predicated on controlling and denying people's access to healthcare and lifesaving treatment. No shit he takes glee in creating more levers to control personal healthcare decisions and deny care

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

Abortion rights (and other similar rights) seem to particularly aggravate entitled and narcissistic people. All the discussions around it always come back to how it makes them “feel”. The women, the unborn, and any larger societal forces at play seem to have little to no bearing on their analysis of the situation. It always filters back to the lens of “how it makes ME feel”. I’m not sure whether the abortion issue is so triggering to them because it provokes them into thinking “what if I didn’t exist?” and that thought is too much to bear to the narcissistic and overly-entitled mind.

I think a well-adjusted mind can reason that if I didn’t exist, I would have no way of knowing that, and it wouldn’t be so terrible. I digress.

 

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

3 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Ana, Ag with Kids, and Johnny Sack are not respectfully presenting supported opinions.  They are trolls, misogynists, and anti-American.  There is ZERO point in engaging.  Neg them and move on.

Ana and Sack troll. AWK is just a dumb aggy posting his honest takes.

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

9 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 

Despite my better judgment I'm dipping my toe into this thread here. But would a lawyer who's better than me explain how Congress could pass a law codifying Roe? Even if it did pass such a law, wouldn't the SCOTUS have the same ability to strike down Roe, as well as that law, kicking it back to the states?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

That’s all part of the act. They absolutely have to distort the opposition in order to hope it’ll bring credibility to their position.

But it doesn’t really work that way in reality.

If it’s my position, for example, that KBJ’s nomination is going to spell doom for America because the floodgates of kindergarten teachers lecturing 5 year olds about transgender issues and critical race theory, and that anyone who opposes me is a pedophile, I’m either an asshole, insane, or insanely stupid.

Any which way, I wouldn’t have either a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out just because I falsely accused the “other side” of wanting to fuck children. This is seriously how low mainstream discourse has gotten, and @Anastasis feeds right into it.

Again, part of the act.

My summary, from December:

Troll: "You're all racist eugenicists!"

Everyone else: "Fuck you, troll"

Troll: "Why can't we find some reasonable common ground? I think you guys should stop being crazy with your opposition to Longhorn victories and come around to my view that it's actually good when the Longhorns win games!" 

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



×
×
  • Create New...