There's an old adage about arguing with a person of limited knowledge.
As I don't want to confused with someone else, I will now ignore your posts that have no historical grounding.
Enjoy your day.
Some advice....your tag line says 'question wonder and be wierd'. Perhaps you should start questioning some of those things that you pass on as knowledge.
There's an old adage about arguing with a person of limited knowledge.
As I don't want to confused with someone else, I will now ignore your posts that have no historical grounding.
Enjoy your day.
Some advice....your tag line says 'question wonder and be wierd'. Perhaps you should start questioning some of those things that you pass on as knowledge.
Are you "Reeling in the Years"?
yes like your buddys you do have very limited understanding and a very very bias and spun hard right world view
I most quote you to correct the many things you Get so very very WRONG REALLY NO HOPE OF GET THRU TO YOU JUST A TRY TO PREVENT OTHERS FROM BELIEVING YOUR SPIN AND DISTORTIONS IS NEAR THE TRUTH
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
The left has gotten so crazy the past few years... like, I don't even really know how to put it into words. There's no explaining how insane they've become.
If tomorrow people started having surgeries to attach penises to their foreheads... Chuck Schumer would pass legislation to have this become a protected right, taught in school, and paid for by the government.
And every left-leaning person just follows along.
My daughter has a friend in school who is a girl, but identifies as a boy. "He's" dating a boy that identifies as a girl. They say they are in a non-heteronormative relationship... but literally, it's a girl dating a boy... ? I just can't with this stuff...
The left has gotten so crazy the past few years... like, I don't even really know how to put it into words. There's no explaining how insane they've become.
It's easy Todd,
LEFTISTS GOTTA LEFTIST
The nature of insane people is to do and say insane things.
The nature of people who form their opinions and make their decisions on their own emotions is to remain perpetually petulant and unreasonable children.
In other words: "Leftists gotta Leftist", because all of that is in their nature.
Leftists didn't become crazier in the past few years. They just got "a bigger bullhorn" and also started more quickly infecting other areas of our society and culture.
-------------------
Thermidor 2022
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-04-2022).]
OK, the author of this dandy little "gem" of a Twatter post isn't known for being the sharpest tool in the Leftist shed, but DAMN !...
This message of his really makes "Mr. Fang Fang the Chinese Spy F**ker" the frontrunner for the 2022 Congressional Clueless Award.
Who's going to be the one to tell him that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Representative Byron Donalds and Justice Clarence Thomas are all in interracial marriages?
-----------------
Leftists gotta Leftist
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-04-2022).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: .... My daughter has a friend in school who is a girl, but identifies as a boy. "He's" dating a boy that identifies as a girl. They say they are in a non-heteronormative relationship... but literally, it's a girl dating a boy... ? I just can't with this stuff...
It's just the latest flavor of "LUGs" (Lesbians Until Graduation.) Neal Boortz used to talk about this on his radio program decades ago. (Damn... I miss him.) I didn't really think much about it, until I realized I (sort-of) knew one. Just an attention-grabbing ploy, I think.
Not sure what you mean by this being a "false flag".
The leak did indeed happen and Chief Justice Roberts confirmed it yesterday. ...
Maybe a poor choice of words. Maybe not. Obviously the leak happened. My comment was regarding the timing, and whether or not the leaked information was actually, you know, accurate. It's certainly steering the topic of conversation away from Brandon, et al. As designed, I'm sure.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 05-05-2022).]
Maybe a poor choice of words. Maybe not. Obviously the leak happened. My comment was regarding the timing, and whether or not the leaked information was actually, you know, accurate. It's certainly steering the topic of conversation away from Brandon, et al. As designed, I'm sure.
If its a draft then its not final and does not represent the final document.
Hale and Brimstone! Hale Mary! Hale and Well Met! Hale to the Chief! Nathan “I have but one life” Hale. Comet Hale-Bopp. And now, courtesy of none other than U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito himself … Sir Matthew Hale!
"Looking rather quaint today, Matt..!"
quote
In case you needed any further proof that the modern anti-abortion movement is an outgrowth of many centuries of virulent misogyny and violence against women, Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked opinion draft striking down Roe v. Wade relies heavily on a 17th century English jurist who had two women executed for “witchcraft,” wrote in defense of marital rape, and believed capital punishment should extend to kids as young as 14.
“Two treatises by Sir Matthew Hale,” Alito wrote in his argument to end legal abortion across America, “described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a ‘great crime’ and a ‘great misprision'.. See M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown.”
That prompted "Aldous J Pennyfarthing" to interject, in the Daily Kos:
quote
So how many of you woke up this morning thinking you were guilty of “great misprisions”? Not many, I’ll wager. But clearly, a great many of you are up to your blowsy neck wattles in them ... Pleas of the Crown? Were there no relevant passages from Archie Comics?
Back to Laura Bassett, in Jezebel:
quote
How interesting that Alito would cite Pleas of the Crown! That’s the text, published in 1736, 60 years after Hale’s death, that defended and laid the foundation for the marital rape exemption across the world. Let’s go straight to the text:
“For the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract,” Hale wrote.
MSNBC's Joy Reid was talking about Sir Matthew Hale at the beginning of today's Reid Out, but I don't have the video.
Sir Matthew Hale. Who didn't see that one coming?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-05-2022).]
What she said pales in comparison to the direct threats to Supreme Court Justices that DemoRAT Schmuckie Schumer made just 24 months ago in connection with the abortion issue:
Again yesterday he got up on the Senate floor and called the Justices names and made accusations of perjury against them but he stopped short of another outright threat.
Leftists gotta Leftist
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-05-2022).]
Ya know, so long as they are on the path to righting past wrongs, is there any chance you guys could lead the world back to sanity and repeal the 19th ???
Ya know, so long as they are on the path to righting past wrongs, is there any chance you guys could lead the world back to sanity and repeal the 19th ???
Imagine that... women not only wish to retain control of their own bodies, but they want the right to vote as well. Uppity b!tches!
Imagine that... women not only wish to retain control of their own bodies, but they want the right to vote as well. Uppity b!tches!
This is a crazy World we live in. On one hand we are being told that people can change gender at will and that words are violence AND so is the lack of words, BUT when people say babies lives matter and that they have voices outside the mothers body,...they are all upset. This simple fact is that the baby inside a woman can't grow in a man who believes he is a woman AND that baby growing inside a woman's body isn't her body. It is a separate person with it's own brain and nervous system. This is exactly why the mother can't feel the pain of a hurting baby inside her. She can't tell what it thinks or if it is uncomfortable. She can't tell if the baby is happy or sad, even at it's very primal and immature stage of life, they still have measurable brain activity that suggests that something is going on continously within the baby. And the mother is totally unaware of how the person within her is doing. The mother cant tell if the baby is sick or suffering, or if the baby is healthy (normal) or deformed. The mother can't tell if the baby is awake or sleeping but can feel it moving sometimes. This is all evidence that proves that the baby is a separate person from the mother and that she is carrying the baby till it can live outside her and into this harsh World. Should a woman have the right to do what she wants with her body? I believe that they already do and have had that right for a LONG time. They just don't have the right to murder a baby that is in her body.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 05-06-2022).]
An embryo is a human and deserves protection against abortion from the earliest moment of conception. The fertilization of the human egg by the human sperm. Or the implantation of the embryo into the wall of the uterus. Protected against abortion, if there is a detectable heartbeat signal (an electrical signal that's detectable from outside the womb) even before there is a heart or the beginnings of a heart inside the embryo. And no exceptions of any kind. It cannot be argued that there was forcible rape. It cannot be argued that there was incest. It does not matter how young the pregnant woman (14 years?) even in a case where it can be argued that there was forcible rape or incest. "Abortion Denied."
If the reporting that I have been seeing is accurate, many of the red state laws against abortion have been written in this way. Is that what they want, or is that a strategy of extremism, staking out a negotiating position—a "stalking horse" as it were—with the idea of stepping back a small ways in some future and perhaps nationwide (putative new federal legislation on abortion) compromise?
Would there be an exception allowing abortions for pregnancy because of human parthenogenesis?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-06-2022).]
An embryo is a human and deserves protection against abortion from the earliest moment of conception. The fertilization of the human egg by the human sperm. Or the implantation of the embryo into the wall of the uterus. Protected against abortion, if there is a detectable heartbeat signal (an electrical signal that's detectable from outside the womb) even before there is a heart or the beginnings of a heart inside the embryo. And no exceptions of any kind. It cannot be argued that there was forcible rape. It cannot be argued that there was incest. It does not matter how young the pregnant woman (14 years?) even in a case where it can be argued that there was forcible rape or incest. "Abortion Denied."
If the reporting that I have been seeing is accurate, many of the red state laws against abortion have been written in this way. Is that what they want, or is that a strategy of extremism, staking out a negotiating position—a "stalking horse" as it were—with the idea of stepping back a small ways in some future and perhaps nationwide (putative new federal legislation on abortion) compromise?
Would there be an exception allowing abortions for pregnancy because of human parthenogenesis?
I suspect a lot of men would have an entirely different view of being pro-choice if it was them who were pregnant and who were being forced to give birth against their wishes.
It's not enough that these men want complete control over the women in their own lives... they demand that women whom have nothing to do with them also be under their thumb.
One life innocent, the other life irresponsible...
I guarantee there are male members of this forum who have impregnated women... and then just buggered off to let the woman deal with the consequences. This has been going on since mankind were apes... oh sorry, since Creation. Yet, by your own admission, the woman is written off as "irresponsible" if she had sexual relations, pregnancy precautions failed, and then doesn't wish to give birth. And if she dies while desperately trying to abort the pregnancy, so what eh? She's just an irresponsible tramp.
You might feel differently if it was your daughter, or your granddaughter slowly, painfully dying of septic shock. But hey, they would never ever have sex unless it was to have a child, would they? Of course not.
I guarantee there are male members of this forum who have impregnated women... and then just buggered off to let the woman deal with the consequences. This has been going on since mankind were apes... oh sorry, since Creation. Yet, by your own admission, the woman is written off as "irresponsible" if she had sexual relations, pregnancy precautions failed, and then doesn't wish to give birth. And if she dies while desperately trying to abort the pregnancy, so what eh? She's just an irresponsible tramp.
You might feel differently if it was your daughter, or your granddaughter slowly, painfully dying of septic shock. But hey, they would never ever have sex unless it was to have a child, would they? Of course not.
Don't put words in my mouth Patrick. I didn't say any such thing.
And I guarantee there are men on this Forum that stepped up to their responsibilities.
And I guarantee there are men on this Forum that stepped up to their responsibilities.
Of course there are... but how does that in any way help the women who weren't nearly so fortunate? How does that help the women who were promised the moon... and who then got the shaft... in more ways than one?
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
Don't put words in my mouth Patrick. I didn't say any such thing.
Well Joe, please explain then your use of the word "irresponsible". How is it supposed to be interpreted in your post?
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
Not to be crass, but either way, a life is lost.
One life innocent, the other life irresponsible, with the exception of rape.
You really show your hypocrisy, lamenting the 'possible' loss of life.
It would be pretty funny, if it weren't for it being such a life and death subject.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 05-06-2022).]
The baby's life is totally innocent, the woman has to bear some responsibility for the results of her actions, she had a choice - the innocent child does not. A comparison between the two parties in the equation.
There are many forms of birth control, many ways to check for pregnancy and morning after pills as well. Responsibility extends to after the fact, as well as during the act. How many women get 4 or 5 months down the road and go 'Oh, I'm pregnant'. Maybe not the responsible ones? Abortion isn't going away, first trimester abortions before a heartbeat are acceptable by most jurisdictions.
The larger point is that the Supreme Court had no Constitutional provision to extend right of privacy legal interpretation to cover abortion. The matter should rightfully, and Constitutionally, be the purview of the States.
...the woman has to bear some responsibility for the results of her actions
...unlike the "father" who's buggered off.
Joe, I appreciate your stance, I really do. I myself am not in favor of abortion being used as a form of birth control. However, I defend a woman's right to control what goes on within her own body.
Topic Closed
Uppity b!tches!
