Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3311
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    For all of the flaws of the Constitution of the United States of America, and there are many of both form and substance, it is the defining document of the most progressive, classically liberal country and society of its time, if not in history to that date.  And, it has underlaid the continued existence of that country for nearly 250 years, while other attempts (notably France) have failed repeatedly in that time span (on their fifth attempt, IIRC).

    It must also be said that in addition to what you’ve already pointed to re: the Constitution, it is also the world’s first secular Constitution. Religious people don’t like to hear that. They like to thunder loudly the phrase “endowed by their creator,” wholly ignoring that 1) that line is deliberately vague and in no way champions the kind of theocracy these modern day losers want to live in and 2) it’s not even in the Constitution and whoever taught them to say that was teaching them how to play sleight of hand. 

    The spirit of this Dobbs ruling absolutely stinks of a fundamental misunderstanding of one particular religious text. That can never be the basis of law here, nor can it be the basis of the laws they intend to pervert and distort if/when they actually do revisit the aforementioned bodily autonomy cases. 

    21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I don't believe the founding fathers would have objected much to it being interpreted and applied to maintain that status, despite their having provided a mechanism for amending it.  Indeed, the Ninth Amendment, as brisket notes, is a hoary old version of "including without limitation," meaning just because it's not listed doesn't mean it doesn't exist and the Constitution doesn't recognize it and protect it.

    I mean just I would invite those who are masturbating over this Dobbs ruling to read through amendments 1-8 and tell me that’s not the case. In each one, as I read them, it’s basically saying because we’re already entitled to do X, the government cannot do Y. And since that’s the case, yeah, the constitution bears no burden to enumerate what citizens can or cannot do. That’s what you lawyers like to refer to as “beyond the scope.”

    21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Try to convince me that the people who wrote "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" would object to further refinement of a right of personal privacy and autonomy in terms of electing medical procedures free from government interference.

    Geez talk about a losing proposition.

    And those old articles from that Tweet should tell you that on the abortion issue in particular, they no doubt would have sided with the majority in Roe. They certainly would have chastised White’s asinine dissent to it.

  2. 1 hour ago, Deej said:

    Yep. No such thing as putting your foot down on the bride's day. They just threw down the gauntlet. It won't end well. 

    Yeah but that's mostly independent of the groom. That mostly falls on the father of the bride, and it happens well before she ever gets engaged.

    The best dads in the world are the ones who teach their daughters at a very early age not to go into that shit. My father once told my sister "honey, I love you but if you ever decide to have your wedding during the football season, I'll be very disappointed and if you decide to have it on TX/OU Saturday, I won't even be disappointed: I'll just send a gift."

    She's happily married. Anniversary is in April. 

    Did she do it out of fear that dad would keep his promise? No. She herself thinks fall weddings are the shits.

  3. 6 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:


    I appreciate the attempt but delineating “good abortions” and “bad abortions” is what helped get us here.

    Three women have told you this and you keep insisting.

    It’s a wonder why we think men need to just shut the fuck up.

    There is NO such thing as an “elective abortion”. Stop using anti-choice framing.

    Far be it from me to ever tell a woman how to handle a man in discussing abortion, but:

    When you see a male insisting in using the term “elective abortions,” just start with “who do you personally know that had this done?” When he inevitably tells you “no one,” you say “ok so you literally know of no one who did this, and yet you say it’s really a thing. Tell me, what happens more frequently: voter fraud or elective abortions?”

  4. 9 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

    Just listened to that cocksucker Asa Hutchison on “Meet the Press.”  Chuck Todd’s first question was whether the lack of a carve out for rape or incest (and in Arkansas it’d likely be both) was a mistake, and he just completely sidestepped the question despite Todd trying to keep hammering it.  What a cunt.

    And it’s a profound thing to uncover about any person who has a hand in shaping policy. 

    If you’re a lawmaker and you have, let’s say, a 14 year old niece, and if she was raped, and she was impregnated, and her rapist was caught and absolutely bound for prison given the available evidence…and you tell us that you’re still ok with abortion being illegal under that set of circumstances, you are telling us that you have it in you to tell your niece “you know, you have an obligation to carry that baby to term.”

    If you say “no I don’t have that in me,” you have absolutely no business having hand fucking one in criminalizing abortion. It’s that simple and there are no two ways about it.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Rage+1 1
  5. 5 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    A woman’s womb is her castle. 

    Oh and the republicans even think so. It’s just that where as pro-choice people tend to think of it as a Red Keep (no pun intended), the republicans tend to think of it as either a Harrenhal or a Riverrun.

  6. 14 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

    You are missing the entire point.  This isn't about life, it is about control.  The cruelty IS the fucking point.  

    And the thing is, it’s never been about “life” with them, and we need to be honest with ourselves and with people who take that position. For the most part, so-called “pro-lifers”:

    -Support the death penalty
    -Supported all of the death squads that the Reagan Administration supported in the 1980’s
    -Are against all or most measures of gun control
    -Are against nuclear weapons control
    -Are against environmental protections
    -Supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq
    -Support the Israeli government’s policies in regards to the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights (all under some bizarre make believe story about Armageddon, which is literally about global death)
    -Oppose single payer health care and everything that’s attached to that (obstetric care)
    -Oppose social safety nets that would help economically disadvantaged children
    -Oppose mandated paid maternity leave (and the few who do support it do so with bare ass minimum time limits)
    -Oppose birth control
    -Oppose sex education 
    -Support punishments for LGBTQ lifestyle decisions

    Yeah, “pro life” my ass. That’s a canard, and it’s the abject failure that the immoral teachings of the religious right Have.Always.Been. If you want to get a sampling of what that sentence means, consider that the states most in favor of “abstinence only education” are also the states that rank the highest in terms of teenage pregnancy, repeat teenage pregnancy, and teenage abortion. So when they tell you that they are pro life, understand that whatever conversation you’ve been having with them at that exact point has lost any purpose and you should cut them off by simply saying “you are lying.”

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 2
    • Rage+1 1
  7. 6 hours ago, Hmbre97 said:

    Pussy is undefeated. Women should just stop fucking dudes who vote for Republicans. See how quick that shit gets fixed when the only women who will fuck you are these broads.

    2640.jpg?width=1200&height=1200&quality=

    That is unless silent/awkward partially-clothed missionary is your thing...

    Dude, have some respect. Those women are in a band. Haven’t you ever heard of the Menopausal Karens?

    They first broke into the business with their big hit I wanna speak to the manager, which was actually the B side of You call that a latte, you lazy minimum wage-earning Hispanic barista?

    But their biggest hit was, of course, I’m calling the cops because you walked your dog while black. 

    And who could forget the classic Speak English, bitch! That one was actually inspired by the one on bottom left going through the traumatic experience of being 3 spots in line behind an Arab millennial talking to her 90 year old grandmother at a Target in suburban Dallas. She still has not forgotten the experience of when she couldn’t figure out if she overheard the word “Allah” or “Holla.”

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 2
    • Haha 3
  8. 37 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    While we're at it, maybe y'all can also show me where it says an individual has a right to own a gun.

    Oh their explanation for that was so pathetic it was comical.

    “Well that line about the well regulated militia is a prefatory clause.”

    ”Really? So what other amendments have prefatory clauses?”

    ”Well none. It’s only in the second amendment.”

    ”I see, so it’s not that the well regulated militia  part was necessary to the amendment and you’re just using that as an excuse?”

    ”Nope! Antonin Scalia said so, so it must be true!”

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  9. 1 hour ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

    Jesus. Your naïveté always led me to believe you were quite young. Please tell me this niece isn’t 8 years old. 
     

     

    Nah you ain’t about that life. You ain’t about that life that tends to suggest that you’re in a position to speculate on such subjects that are well past your pay grade.

  10. 6 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

    I hate how much my taxes are, but there is good and evil, and a vote for a Republican is a vote for evil.  Wasn’t always the case, but has been increasingly so since about 2009.

    Their evil was born under Nixon, hit puberty with Reagan, peaked out during the W Bush years and hit the demented-old-guy-with-long-fingernails-shitting-in-jars under Trump. They’re just now figuring out the those jars can be used as projectile weapons.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  11. 22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    In some ways it works, but it does assume that a) the legislation passes and b) a Democratic administration can get all the appointments for the new spots.

    On point a I would agree, but if they actually did that would mean Manchin and Sinema would have been convinced finally to kill the filibuster and to add more judges, so since that would almost have to be the case, point B would be moot because they’d be able to rapid fire those.

    I have next to zero confidence that it would come to it with this current makeup but at some, we do have to recognize that we are indeed a failed state and therefore have to operate within that framework. In a bi-factional system, when one faction doesn’t operate within the framework we like to call “rule of law,” there’s no reason for the other to do so either. Even if they put forth their most earnest effort to do so, the Democrats are never going to convince Republicans to operate within that framework, so that “when they go low we go high” shit just doesn’t reach anyone serious. It’s lofty rhetoric, sure, but lofty rhetoric doesn’t give us Roe back and it doesn’t protect Obergfell, Griswold and/or Lawrence.

    22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    We have several anti-democratic institutions, intentionally, that are not functioning as intended in the Senate, the electoral college, and the Court.  I'm pretty much untroubled by attempting to make the Court more "democratic."

    At this point, I’m not. The whole notion of “lifetime appointment,” coupled with this Court’s absolute lack of moral integrity, is just an invitation to the most sociopathic judges imaginable to aspire to serve on it. That no longer seems to me a viable option. A Samuel Alito and a Clarence Thomas can never be seen as people whom anyone should aspire to emulate. 

    22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I have been a lawyer for 30 years.  I alternate between cynicism toward the Court and believing, until recently, that the justices were ultimately largely independent of partisan politics (meaning, yes they are conservative and liberal, and yes, often their decisions will reflect that, but not grossly partisan, implementing agendas of their appointing party).

    Well if the second alternative is no longer viable and you’re now only cynical towards it in its current guise, why would you still be troubled by the prospect of making it more democratic? 

    • Like 1
  12. It’s time that we started discussing this topic and I want to start it off by posting two videos to kinda guide it along at least at first. I would really like to see the lawyers’ takes on it in particular. 
     

     

  13. 9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Not anymore.  The states are free to regulate to before 10 weeks.  We're not talking about "fetal heartbeat" laws anymore.  We're talking complete ban.

    Yeah that’s what the upcoming Texas law is. Moment of fertilization, no exceptions for rape or incest, will attempt extradition and subsequent prosecution if anyone leaves the state to do it. That’s precisely why Minnesota and others are literally flipping us off in advance. It’s also why employers like Dick’s are flipping us off in advance.

    None of that has shit to do with a heartbeat. 

×
×
  • Create New...