SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[Ball Security]

 

 

[Destino]

On 6/26/2022 at 2:48 PM, Destino said:

it’s not just about controlling women, though I agree with every word you wrote here.  This is just a battle for them, not the war.  They’re real enemy is secularism, which allows these other cultures, religions, and ways of life to challenge them.  Gay marriage, gay rights, abortion, contraception, public schools, immigration, voting rights, and even civil war memorials/monuments… all of these are battles in the overall war white evangelical nationalists are fighting against secular government.  

 

 

 

I’m going to quote myself here because Rep Hoebert has been kind enough to strengthen my argument.  

 

Believe them when they tell you who they are.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

45 minutes ago, Destino said:

Believe them when they tell you who they are.  

 

Yea, that really isn't a thing Republicans do.  Have you seen the transgender rights debates?

[Long n Left]

13 hours ago, tshile said:

One thing I would like to come out of this is some discussion about what the man’s rights are in that situation. 
 

im not trying to get carried away with it, and I don’t even really have any ideas, but the closest one would be like you said - if the man wants an abortion and the woman refuses, the man shouldn’t be on the hook for child support. 
 

I realize it’s odd to even try to square the man deciding whether an abortion is done or not is weird cause it’s literally another persons body… but the idea he’d have to pay child support while having no say in any of it is dumb. 

Wow! Really? This is blatant sexism.

 

A man has every “right” to wear a condom during sex to prevent unwanted pregnancies. 
 

So, in your world view, a man can just have unprotected sex with any woman he wants, impregnate her, then say, “Well, I wanted an abortion, so I’m not on the hook for this kid?” 
 

I did not expect this stance from you.

[The Sisko]

20 hours ago, tshile said:

If you need the difference between voting in Russia and the USA explained, then that’s everything everyone needs to know about the conversation. 
 

i get that declaring us an oligarchy like Russia just fits oh so swell into your general narrative of the United States, and the relentless arguments you make about just how awful ****ty it is to be a USA citizen. 
 

that doesn’t make it true. It’s unfortunate you don’t get it. But you are pretty far gone down that hole, and have been for a while. 
 

i don’t mean any disrespect. It just is what it is. You’ve shared enough of what you think about it all, that’s it clear I’m not even exaggerating here. 

OK, you’ve made yourself clear. I’ll shut up. 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Long n Left said:

Wow! Really? This is blatant sexism.

 

A man has every “right” to wear a condom during sex to prevent unwanted pregnancies. 
 

So, in your world view, a man can just have unprotected sex with any woman he wants, impregnate her, then say, “Well, I wanted an abortion, so I’m not on the hook for this kid?” 
 

I did not expect this stance from you.

seems like a super childish way to describe what I wrote, but have at it. 

19 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

OK, you’ve made yourself clear. I’ll shut up. 

❤️

we’re just at odds on this one is all. At the end of the day we want the same thing - a competent government that spends its time making things better, not worse. We just see different paths to get there. 

[The Sisko]

No worries. We kind of went off on a tangent anyway.

[86 Snyder]

17 hours ago, tshile said:

One thing I would like to come out of this is some discussion about what the man’s rights are in that situation. 
 

im not trying to get carried away with it, and I don’t even really have any ideas, but the closest one would be like you said - if the man wants an abortion and the woman refuses, the man shouldn’t be on the hook for child support. 
 

I realize it’s odd to even try to square the man deciding whether an abortion is done or not is weird cause it’s literally another persons body… but the idea he’d have to pay child support while having no say in any of it is dumb. 

You should have stopped at “I don’t even really have any ideas”.

[China]

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[China]

Trumpists Call on Supreme Court to Let States ‘Establish Religion Within Their Borders’

 

America First Legal, whose team includes several Trump administration officials, wants the court’s conservative majority to “eventually disincorporate” the First Amendment’s establishment clause

 

America First Legal (AFL), a right-wing group whose team includes several former Trump administration officials, is urging the Supreme Court to do even more to shatter what’s left of the wall between church and state.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[86 Snyder]

Goddamn it, here we go

[Captain Wiggles]

Sharia Law? 🤭

[skinsmarydu]

[Momma There Goes That Man]

This guy needs to go. He can’t run again, he’s simply not up for the fight that this moment demands 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Momma There Goes That Man

[LadySkinsFan]

I'd like to see Newsome run.

[NoCalMike]

1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I'd like to see Newsome run.

 

I wanted him to run initially, but I have no idea how "that CA extreme leftist" will play nationally.  Not that he is an extremist to begin with of course, but it won't matter. I think if the country would have remained normal post-Obama, Newsom would have had a pretty good chance to make a run at it.  I have no idea now.

2 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

This guy needs to go. He can’t run again, he’s simply not up for the fight that this moment demands 

 

 

 

Uh-huh, just another reminder that in America 2022, there is nothing considered "too right-wing" that turns into a poison pill for your candidacy, however if you take steps to protect things that the actual majority of the country agrees with? EXTREMIST! 

[88Comrade2000]

Even if Biden runs; he should have people run against him. A good candidate would easily beat him.

[NoCalMike]

The EPA ruling, if it goes as expected.......will be devastating.  

[Llevron]

5 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Even if Biden runs; he should have people run against him. A good candidate would easily beat him.

If Dems just bow out of the way of an 100 year old man I don’t know what I’ll do but it will start with lots of bourbon

[tshile]

I expect the scotus ruling will be followed by a trump statement about how he did, ultimately, protect the coal industry 

[The 12th Commandment]

No abortion re-population plan?  Fail

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/urologists-see-dramatic-increase-in-vasectomies-after-roe-was-overturned

 

Quote

The decision to overturn Roe v. Wade isn’t just scaring the hell out of people with uteruses, as several urologists interviewed by The Washington Post said they are seeing a huge increase in vasectomy interest. Florida urologists Doug Stein and John Curington think there’s a reason. “I’d say at least 60 or 70 percent are mentioning the Supreme Court decision,” Curington said. “And a few of them have such sophistication as young men that they actually are thinking about Justice Thomas and his opinion that contraception may fall next. And that’s shocking. That’s something that doesn’t enter into our conversations ever, until this week.”

More at link

 

[Larry]

10 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

The EPA ruling, if it goes as expected.......will be devastating.  

Well, certainly if it goes the way I'm expecting. 
 

I expect them to not only rule that the federal government has no authority to regulate pollution. But several other federal tasks, as well. OHSA, DeptLabor, CDC, come to mind. 
 

The court that could have simply carved out another exception to Roe, but who chose to explicitly state they were eliminating it, won't pass up a chance to eliminate all pollution controls, too. 

[Fan since a Fetus]

Didn’t Biden say nothing would significantly change when he was running? He’s holding true to that. He also said that he would codify abortion at that time. Having a weak president fighting against a ruthless enemy (I really hate saying enemy, but they are at this point) is not in our countries best interest. 
 

Democrats could have fought harder for the last few decades, but they didn’t care enough. So, here we are. We need a strong leader that actually believes in freedom, not someone that has co-opted the word.

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, Fan since a Fetus said:

Didn’t Biden say nothing would significantly change when he was running? He’s holding true to that. He also said that he would codify abortion at that time. Having a weak president fighting against a ruthless enemy (I really hate saying enemy, but they are at this point) is not in our countries best interest. 
 

Democrats could have fought harder for the last few decades, but they didn’t care enough. So, here we are. We need a strong leader that actually believes in freedom, not someone that has co-opted the word.

They never anticipated the Republicans to be this radical or go this far. And at some level I can understand that. I assumed a lot of this stuff was just politics and posturing myself. 
 

But they work in the same building as those **** suckers. They should know if anyone.