Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[Holly Martins]

Wow. 

I can see why Yankguy wondered what he was doing here and found a bench on the sidelines.  Pass me the sunflower seeds.

[josh]

No nirvana for Graham.

Ward. you really seem unaware of the conflict between your libertarian views and restricting or banning abortion.  Fascinating.

Please explain.
Especially the idea that abortion was banned

Abortion, endorsing or banning, is now up to all Americans,state by state.

That is not a Libertarian idea, it is how a Democracy functions.

No, for the most part it is not how a Democracy functions.

We put limits on things, like drinking and gun ownership.

But a Democracy does not VOTE on an individual's bodily autonomy.

We are not voting on whether or not a given individual is allowed to leave the country or to own a home.

That we had to vote on the rights of women to vote, to own property, to get credit in her own name... these are marks of a FLAWED Democracy - but you, Ward, would have it that that sort of thing should remain up to the votes of the people.

[Espnthree]

No nirvana for Graham.

Ward. you really seem unaware of the conflict between your libertarian views and restricting or banning abortion.  Fascinating.

Please explain.
Especially the idea that abortion was banned

Abortion, endorsing or banning, is now up to all Americans,state by state.

That is not a Libertarian idea, it is how a Democracy functions.

No, for the most part it is not how a Democracy functions.

We put limits on things, like drinking and gun ownership.

But a Democracy does not VOTE on an individual's bodily autonomy.

We are not voting on whether or not a given individual is allowed to leave the country or to own a home.

That we had to vote on the rights of women to vote, to own property, to get credit in her own name... these are marks of a FLAWED Democracy - but you, Ward, would have it that that sort of thing should remain up to the votes of the people.

Way to miss the point.
Abortion was never allowed by Americans until unelected Justices labeled it a RIGHT protected by the Constitution.
Now we know those Justices got it wrong.
So we are back to letting Americans settling the issue at the voting booth  no matter how you change the subject with clutter like individual bodily autonomy.
A woman certainly knows what body carries  a baby after sex with a man.
Do not insult women to perpetuate your flawed thinking.
Why are you afraid of letting the people decide?

[kiidcarter8]

Wow. 

I can see why Yankguy wondered what he was doing here and found a bench on the sidelines.  Pass me the sunflower seeds.

YG is in the front row

[josh]

the man who made them possible.

More hyperbole.

[josh]

No nirvana for Graham.

Ward. you really seem unaware of the conflict between your libertarian views and restricting or banning abortion.  Fascinating.

Please explain.
Especially the idea that abortion was banned

Abortion, endorsing or banning, is now up to all Americans,state by state.

That is not a Libertarian idea, it is how a Democracy functions.

No, for the most part it is not how a Democracy functions.

We put limits on things, like drinking and gun ownership.

But a Democracy does not VOTE on an individual's bodily autonomy.

We are not voting on whether or not a given individual is allowed to leave the country or to own a home.

That we had to vote on the rights of women to vote, to own property, to get credit in her own name... these are marks of a FLAWED Democracy - but you, Ward, would have it that that sort of thing should remain up to the votes of the people.

Way to miss the point.
Abortion was never allowed by Americans until unelected Justices labeled it a RIGHT protected by the Constitution.

Separate but equal was allowed by Americans until unelected Justices labeled it WRONG.

Interracial marriage was never allowed by Americans etc.

Same sex marriage...

[josh]

https://www.westerninvestor.com/british-columbia/saskatchewan-ontario-to-roll-out-mini-nuclear-reactors-5568249

Don't hold your breath yet. Ontario might get theirs in 2028, Saskatchewan in the 2030s.

[Espnthree]

No nirvana for Graham.

Ward. you really seem unaware of the conflict between your libertarian views and restricting or banning abortion.  Fascinating.

Please explain.
Especially the idea that abortion was banned

Abortion, endorsing or banning, is now up to all Americans,state by state.

That is not a Libertarian idea, it is how a Democracy functions.

No, for the most part it is not how a Democracy functions.

We put limits on things, like drinking and gun ownership.

But a Democracy does not VOTE on an individual's bodily autonomy.

We are not voting on whether or not a given individual is allowed to leave the country or to own a home.

That we had to vote on the rights of women to vote, to own property, to get credit in her own name... these are marks of a FLAWED Democracy - but you, Ward, would have it that that sort of thing should remain up to the votes of the people.

Way to miss the point.
Abortion was never allowed by Americans until unelected Justices labeled it a RIGHT protected by the Constitution.

Separate but equal was allowed by Americans until unelected Justices labeled it WRONG.

Separate but equal was invented by Justices until it was unanimously rejected by the Court

Interracial marriage was never allowed by Americans

But marriage was and is allowed by Americans. Surely you are not suggesting you are a racist

Same sex marriage...

Marriage  was and is allowed by Americans. Surely you are not suggesting you are a homophobe.

[Hairy Lime]

Army recruitment down 10,000.

I wonder why

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

Plentiful jobs in a booming economy?

[Hairy Lime]

No nirvana for Graham.

Ward. you really seem unaware of the conflict between your libertarian views and restricting or banning abortion.  Fascinating.

Red will revert to the fiction that the expected and intended consequence of the abortion decision is irrelevant.

[josh]

Separate but equal was invented by the people, then ratified by the Justices.

Try again.

And abortion was allowed everywhere until 1821: "Connecticut was the first U.S. state to outlaw medicinal abortion after quickening in 1821, followed by 10 of the 26 states creating similar restrictions within 20 years. New York made post-quickening abortions a felony and pre-quickening abortions a misdemeanor in 1829."

You keep inventing bullshit to excuse the cancellation of a right, but it doesn't fly.

Marriage was legal, but the unions I described were not considered marriage... until they were.

Common law marriages are not recognized in all states. Some recognize them if they began before a certain date, but not after. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution would have seemed to have fixed that, but Texas refused to accept that two women who wanted a divorce could get one, since Texas didn't acknowledge same sex marriages.

Matt and Crystal got married in Kansas. They returned home to Nebraska. Matt was arrested and went to jail for 15 months for statutory rape. She was 13.

"Marriage was and is allowed by Americans" is a fatuous statement and demonstrably only applies in certain circumstances - and they have changed and will change again.

[Espnthree]

No nirvana for Graham.

Ward. you really seem unaware of the conflict between your libertarian views and restricting or banning abortion.  Fascinating.

Red will revert to the fiction that the expected and intended consequence of the abortion decision is irrelevant.

I already did.

[josh]

No nirvana for Graham.

Ward. you really seem unaware of the conflict between your libertarian views and restricting or banning abortion.  Fascinating.

Red will revert to the fiction that the expected and intended consequence of the abortion decision is irrelevant.

I already did.

Because none of what you say means any more than what Kavanaugh or Gorsuch or McConnell or McCarthy or Trump says - whatever convenient argument you can make.

We do get it.

[kiidcarter8]

This is good stuff on CNN tonight.

No new ground.  Lots of fibbing within the committee.

[josh]

This is good stuff on CNN tonight.

No new ground.  Lots of fibbing within the committee.

Your biased analysis is duly noted.