Random Political Chat - Text Only No Memes

D

david starling

Well-known member
leomoon said:
We simply preach to the choir here. :whistling: I think they inserted permanent earplugs (the lifetime kind)
Click to expand...

Those who still mourn DJT's loss of the 2020 election KNOW he lost in a fair contest.

But, they just can't resist "driving the Libs crazy" by pretending he didn't. It's also makes them feel less upset about it.
 
leomoon

leomoon

Well-known member
david starling said:
Those who still mourn DJT's loss of the 2020 election KNOW he lost in a fair contest.

But, they just can't resist "driving the Libs crazy" by pretending he didn't. It's also makes them feel less upset about it.
Click to expand...


I honestly don't think souls do themselves any favors by lying to oneself. I try and live the Shakespeare quote I learned as a child:


"To thine own self be true, then thou will not be false to any other" (from his play)


People quote it all the time, they just don't live their quotes. I actually take them to heart :love:
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
leomoon said:
I honestly don't think souls do themselves any favors by lying to oneself. I try and live the Shakespeare quote I learned as a child:


"To thine own self be true, then thou will not be false to any other" (from his play)


People quote it all the time, they just don't live their quotes. I actually take them to heart :love:
Click to expand...


I'm saying that most of them are able to think logically and factually. So, they're not lying to THEMSELVES. They're just trolling the anti-Trump voters by PRETENDING they actually believe Biden didn't really win. Pretty funny, really! :lol:
 
S

SunConjunctUranus

Well-known member
JUPITERASC said:
e9qsp7wofvy51.jpg
Click to expand...

Bergoglio is a communist apostate, everyone within community knows this. Soviet's infiltration of Vatican started from Paul 6 and heretical magisterium Vatican II. Stop this bs meme, bro
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
Blaze said:
Progressive Dusts Off 'My Body, My Choice' Sign She Put In Storage At Beginning Of The Pandemic: https://babylonbee.com/news/hello-again-old-friend-progressive-dusts-off-my-body-my-choice-sign-she-put-in-storage-at-beginning-of-the-pandemic

- The Babylon Bee

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

Most Liberals and Progressives can't make the connection between the right of Individuals to CHOOSE what medical procedures to use on their own bodies, and Government taking away that right by law and by coercion when it comes to being vaxxed. They completely ignore the "insignificant few" who suffered severe side-effects, including long-term damage to their health and even death due to the vaccines.

Most Conservatives and far right-wingers can't make that connection when it comes to the Government denying women the right to end a pregnancy with a safe medical procedure . They completely ignore "the insignificant few" who suffer severe side-effects, including long-term damage to their health and even death from complications due to giving birth, and many are literally surgically cut open to accomplish it. It's called a "c-section", which can lead to complications of its own.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Oddity said:
Then everyone is forgetting that it's a states rights issue,
it's not being legislated on morality.
Click to expand...


"...My body, My choice...." lost meaning
when vax mandates & mask mandates went unopposed by these house plants :smile:


pro-life is more than being anti-abortion.
This means protecting the unborn.

This means protecting children.

This means protecting the disabled.

This means protecting the elderly.

This means making and enforcing laws to protect everyone.
most dont realize that even in California
they have a section of the homicide law

that if someone causes the death of a fetus its homicide.
It carries the same weight as any other homicide
the mother doesn't have to die
and they even have a defense if a doctor does it.
The mental gymnastics is profound

How anyone can justify trying to intimidate Supreme Court justices :smile:
is beyond me.
The "...insurrection.." was a mob of people committing a misdemeanor,
this mob is committing a felony
but
watch how it is spun
and
watch how it is enforced

I am shocked at the lack of ethics among infant murderers :smile:

More leftists allowed to skirt the law. What a surprise
Abortion Activists Protest At SCOTUS HOMES Violating Federal Law,
Rumor Justices Under 24/7 Security


Jan 6th they were let in by the police
into the people’s house or a public building.
it’s a lot different
when you show up at someone’s personal private home
where it’s supposed to be your sanctuary

You can protest all you want in the public space.
"...Protesting..." in front of someone's house is harassment
and intimidation. It's social terrorism

Laws are only real when they are ENFORCED. If they are NOT enforced, they are simply words on paper.
 ALL the justices should decide to send abortion laws to the state level
and have a United front against this attack on our courts
a person kills a woman who is pregnant
they get charged/convicted with double homicide, but then
a woman can kill her baby (even after birth) and
it’s simply business as usual.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf9Y8LeIieA



we won't concede the rape and incest argument
because
that means we're allowing the murder of a person
based on the behavior of someone else. That's wrong.
There's really no middle ground here.
If it's a human being, which it is, there's no question about that
and
if human beings have intrinsic worth :smile:
then you don't willfully kill them under any circumstances.
We'll acknowledge that sometimes a mother's life is in danger
but we don't just flippantly choose to murder the child
instead, it's a rescue mission:
do whatever we can to save both if at all possible.
And for rape, it's evil.
How about we give rapists the death penalty and not their children?


.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
Oddity said:
Then everyone is forgetting that it's a states rights issue, it's not being legislated on morality.
Click to expand...

The 4th Amendment leaves room for deciding that. "Secure in their person" obviously allows for individual choice when it comes to modern medical procedures. And, the 4th admits that not all essential rights are included in the writing of the Constitution.

I, for one, consider the right to choose when it comes to medical procedures to be an essential right. States should NOT be able to dictate that, imo.

One example was the Military Draft, which CLEARLY violated the 4th Amendment, yet COULD NOT force a potential draftee to undergo even a simple and safe medical procedure that would have made that Individual fit for duty.
 
Oddity

Oddity

Well-known member
You do realise that even red states are likely to make exceptions for the life of the mother, incest, and rape, no? Those are less than 1% of abortions.


Here, sex-selective abortion is big in the Indian and Chinese communities - they're big. Not a majority, but a significant minority of women abort babies after an ultrasound and discovering it's a girl, because it's more socially and economically advantageous to have boys. I don't know if they realise the problem they're creating, but it is what it is.



Trudeau has promised to always keep that legal.



One of the reasons that many of us are in favour of abortion restrictions, at least here.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
No State Government should have the legal authority to either force a woman to have an abortion, like in China, or to prevent her from having an abortion if she chooses to do that within a reasonable time limit. It's the time limit that can be determined based on science, but not on religious dogma, since we have separation of Church and State.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
Oddity said:
You do realise that even red states are likely to make exceptions for the life of the mother, incest, and rape, no? Those are less than 1% of abortions.


Here, sex-selective abortion is big in the Indian and Chinese communities - they're big. Not a majority, but a significant minority of women abort babies after an ultrasound and discovering it's a girl, because it's more socially and economically advantageous to have boys. I don't know if they realise the problem they're creating, but it is what it is.



Trudeau has promised to always keep that legal.



One of the reasons that many of us are in favour of abortion restrictions, at least here.
Click to expand...

How would you word the restrictions in that case? Also, would you be satisfied if they all moved to a Province that allowed it, and kept doing it? Province rights?
 
Oddity

Oddity

Well-known member
Since it's national law here, and even conservatives know it's political suicide to challenge it, it won't happen. A woman in Canada can have an abortion at any moment before the baby is born.



Given how our government is set up, federalism wouldn't really work here.


I wonder how many 'abortion refugees' we'll get from the States?



david starling said:
How would you word the restrictions in that case? Also, would you be satisfied if they all moved to a Province that allowed it, and kept doing it? Province rights?
Click to expand...
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Oddity said:
You do realise that even red states are likely to make exceptions for the life of the mother, incest, and rape, no? Those are less than 1% of abortions.


Here, sex-selective abortion is big in the Indian and Chinese communities - they're big. Not a majority, but a significant minority of women abort babies after an ultrasound and discovering it's a girl, because it's more socially and economically advantageous to have boys. I don't know if they realise the problem they're creating, but it is what it is.

Trudeau has promised to always keep that legal.

One of the reasons that many of us are in favour of abortion restrictions, at least here.
Click to expand...

There has never been so many ways to prevent pregnancy
If they consent to unprotected sex, that was their choice.
Choice shouldn't allow people to prevent another human from living
because they're inconvenienced.
Unless it's in self defense when their life is at risk.
And if they're inconvenienced, give the baby up for adoption.
There are couples out there that can't have children
who have had miscarriages who are devastated
and would make great parents
to take on the responsibility for these irresponsible people
I sure as hell don't want them raising children.

not just Pro-Life Anti-Infanticide :smile:

Ppl are in fear because they might not be able to kill their children.
The horror

REALITY: Ginsberg was warning it would get overturned
as it was a bad case since 1992
and Scalia specified in the draft that
it could NOT effect ANY cases besides Roe and Casey

pro-life includes being anti abortion
also extends to being anti-war, anti-governmental brutality
As for exceptions for rape
- abortion is the only time people are okay with killing an innocent third party
because one person did something wrong to another person.
How is it just to kill someone that has done you no harm?
Killing an unborn child because someone raped another person
makes you as bad or worse than a rapist.
If you want to argue for exacting severe judgement on the rapist
then that is a much better argument.

Finally, think about the narrative that is given
when you say things like "...rape cases should be allowed for abortion..."
Would you tell children of rape
that their life has less meaning than any other persons' life?
all of the people born because of rape or incest
have to constantly hear
how lots of people think they should have been aborted. Yikes.


What makes the “...mother’s...” one choice more important :smile:
or protection worthy
than the whole lifetime of choices the baby will never get to make? Murder. Period.
the father's opinion is disregarded in this whole abortion matter.
What if the father wants the baby
and doesn't want his child to be killed.
Father's should have the right to not have their baby killed
by an abortionist.


Z

properly defining the sides.
This is all about abortion.
Coaching that action in the language of choice
is an attempt to obscure the argument.
Nobody likes to have others tell them what to do
so it's a good way to get them on your side.
But they're not pro-choice when it comes to school choice, for example.

Same with pro-life.
Many pro-life people are pro-death penalty, so they aren't pro-life everywhere :smile:


Both sides use the political language to make themselves look better
while making their opponents look like hypocrites.
This is just about abortion
and how it is a repugnant practice that should be ended.
However, we are a country of laws
and if you want to tolerate the killing of babies for convenience
that's on you


The "...insurrection.." was a mob of people committing a misdemeanor,
this mob is committing a felony
but
watch how it is spun
and
watch how it is enforced
our POTATUS and his ilk are perfectly accepting of this.
Genuinely think about that

The FBI better keep a list and facial recognition
of every person outside the homes of the judge’s, like they did for Jan 6th.
No excuse !!! the word “...fetus...” is the Latin word for “..baby...”
that the pro-abortion folks came up with to make their arguments seem reasonable.
If you replace the word “...fetus...” with “...baby...” in these stories,
average people would be horrified
Being a victim of a crime doesn't give a person the right to commit a crime.
Doesn't matter what the circumstances are.
Being raped doesn't give you a Get out of Murder for Free Card.
More leftists allowed to skirt the law. What a surprise
Abortion Activists Protest At SCOTUS HOMES Violating Federal Law,
Rumor Justices Under 24/7 Security


Jan 6th they were let in by the police
into the people’s house or a public building.
it’s a lot different
when you show up at someone’s personal private home
where it’s supposed to be your sanctuary

You can protest all you want in the public space.
"...Protesting..." in front of someone's house is harassment
and intimidation. It's social terrorism

Laws are only real when they are ENFORCED. If they are NOT enforced, they are simply words on paper.
 ALL the justices should decide to send abortion laws to the state level
and have a United front against this attack on our courts
a person kills a woman who is pregnant
they get charged/convicted with double homicide, but then
a woman can kill her baby (even after birth) and
it’s simply business as usual.

Roe v Wade is awful
It was not up to the court to decide when abortion would be legal
The court could only decide
whether the Texas law was constitutional or not.
It way overstepped its authority

We need to draft and test a national abortion bill
to decide
where the boundary between state and federal authority lies


The court is specifically
stating they are not in the business of dictating when life begins.
This is a right to privacy case
we won't concede the rape and incest argument
because
that means we're allowing the murder of a person
based on the behavior of someone else. That's wrong.
There's really no middle ground here.

If it's a human being, which it is, there's no question about that
and
if human beings have intrinsic worth :smile:
then you don't willfully kill them under any circumstances.


.
 
Oddity

Oddity

Well-known member
What's the science? Who qualifies as a person? We don't have a legal definition of that yet.


I'd be cautious about federal regulation. Do you like the new Homeland Security Disinformation Bureau?



david starling said:
No State Government should have the legal authority to either force a woman to have an abortion, like in China, or to prevent her from having an abortion if she chooses to do that within a reasonable time limit. It's the time limit that can be determined based on science, but not on religious dogma, since we have separation of Church and State.
Click to expand...
 
Top