The Supremes

[Starfleet Command 441]

14 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

 

It's going to be fascinating to see how far they are willing to go, particularly on the state level.  They are used to pushing so hard on this issue knowing their options were somewhat limited with Roe.  Now that the handcuffs are off, do state elected leaders still battle to out crazy each other to avoid being out-flanked on the right?  If that does, at what point in some of these states do their actions become so shocking and offensive to the public of that state that things start to shift where the other party begins to make gains?  

[DigglerontheHoof 21204]

Just now, Starfleet Command said:

It's going to be fascinating to see how far they are willing to go, particularly on the state level.  They are used to pushing so hard on this issue knowing their options were somewhat limited with Roe.  Now that the handcuffs are off, do state elected leaders still battle to out crazy each other to avoid being out-flanked on the right?  If that does, at what point in some of these states do their actions become so shocking and offensive to the public of that state that things start to shift where the other party begins to make gains?  

By the time we reach this point, free elections will likely have gone the way of the dodo. 

[Brisketexan 105161]

By the time we reach this point, free elections will likely have gone the way of the dodo. 

This. When the race is towards “who can be the biggest fascist authoritarians,” we’ve all lost well before they reach their final destination.

[Chad Fuck 17686]

22 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

By the time we reach this point, free elections will likely have gone the way of the dodo. 

In some places we're there already.  

[bluto 4932]

19 minutes ago, Starfleet Command said:

It's going to be fascinating to see how far they are willing to go, particularly on the state level.  They are used to pushing so hard on this issue knowing their options were somewhat limited with Roe.  Now that the handcuffs are off, do state elected leaders still battle to out crazy each other to avoid being out-flanked on the right?  If that does, at what point in some of these states do their actions become so shocking and offensive to the public of that state that things start to shift where the other party begins to make gains?  

Not to go brisket (I see he posted while I’m typing this so he prob covered it) but what in the living f makes anybody think the hard R is going away? Or that the ‘normal’ R’s will take control back of their party 

[Neonmoon 38129]

People keep expecting reason to eventually prevail with years of evidence to the contrary. 

This will lead to more civil unrest 

[Francisco 2.0 32395]

45 minutes ago, Starfleet Command said:

It's going to be fascinating to see how far they are willing to go, particularly on the state level.  They are used to pushing so hard on this issue knowing their options were somewhat limited with Roe.  Now that the handcuffs are off, do state elected leaders still battle to out crazy each other to avoid being out-flanked on the right?  If that does, at what point in some of these states do their actions become so shocking and offensive to the public of that state that things start to shift where the other party begins to make gains?  

 

You must be new here.

 

 

[lemonlime 5503]

1 hour ago, Starfleet Command said:

It's going to be fascinating to see how far they are willing to go, particularly on the state level.  They are used to pushing so hard on this issue knowing their options were somewhat limited with Roe.  Now that the handcuffs are off, do state elected leaders still battle to out crazy each other to avoid being out-flanked on the right?  If that does, at what point in some of these states do their actions become so shocking and offensive to the public of that state that things start to shift where the other party begins to make gains?  

These are people who were fine with separating babies from their mothers.  The Kool Aid was drunk long ago.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 hour ago, Starfleet Command said:

It's going to be fascinating to see how far they are willing to go, particularly on the state level.  They are used to pushing so hard on this issue knowing their options were somewhat limited with Roe.  Now that the handcuffs are off, do state elected leaders still battle to out crazy each other to avoid being out-flanked on the right?  If that does, at what point in some of these states do their actions become so shocking and offensive to the public of that state that things start to shift where the other party begins to make gains?  

 

17 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

You must be new here.

 

 

No kidding. It doesn't take going back too far in the Surly wayback machine to find the discussions regarding the Texas Constitution and slavery. Is anyone surprised that there are folks who think the concept of states' rights should include the restoration of the white male and the white male alone to supremacy? Just ask Senator Mike Braun of Indiana for his opinion on Loving v. Virginia. Or Louisiana passing the bill to make access to birth control nonexistent regardless of marital status.

 

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

A thread on reddit brought this one to my attention.  I had no idea this happened last year.  

Criminalizing a woman for suffering a miscarriage seems unfathomable and even barbaric. But that is exactly what happened earlier this month in a Lawton, Okla., courtroom.

[elfenix 34326]

FDNY: "never heard of him"

 

[tx 3 putt 77120]

2 hours ago, Starfleet Command said:

It's going to be fascinating to see how far they are willing to go, particularly on the state level.  They are used to pushing so hard on this issue knowing their options were somewhat limited with Roe.  Now that the handcuffs are off, do state elected leaders still battle to out crazy each other to avoid being out-flanked on the right?  If that does, at what point in some of these states do their actions become so shocking and offensive to the public of that state that things start to shift where the other party begins to make gains?  

de

i dont see florida wanting to go that hard on aboriton. hopefully this all fucks santis 

Edited May 9, 2022 by tx 3 putt

[Lurch 5931]

It's going to be fascinating to see how far they are willing to go, particularly on the state level.  They are used to pushing so hard on this issue knowing their options were somewhat limited with Roe.  Now that the handcuffs are off, do state elected leaders still battle to out crazy each other to avoid being out-flanked on the right?  If that does, at what point in some of these states do their actions become so shocking and offensive to the public of that state that things start to shift where the other party begins to make gains?  

This guy is tracking them all in a thread

[David Dennison 18927]

I wonder if jury nullification is about to make a comeback.

[4th&Five 41565]

 

[gmr548 16580]

It's going to be fascinating to see how far they are willing to go, particularly on the state level.  They are used to pushing so hard on this issue knowing their options were somewhat limited with Roe.  Now that the handcuffs are off, do state elected leaders still battle to out crazy each other to avoid being out-flanked on the right?  If that does, at what point in some of these states do their actions become so shocking and offensive to the public of that state that things start to shift where the other party begins to make gains?  

It doesn’t.

[Satchel 6938]

Some people just won’t vote for a party that includes “others” they consider to be an exigent threat to their power.

[Satchel 6938]

On 5/7/2022 at 10:41 PM, Starfleet Command said:

Not really a fan of stuff like this.  It's ugly and the family doesn't deserve it.  But at the same time, it shouldn't come as a shock when a few flies are attracted to the open sewer that has become our elite public institutions.

 

 

Then there’s Christine Ford:

Because of the abuse she’s receiving, Ford has had to move four times. She can’t go to work as a professor at Palo Alto University, and it’s unclear when she’ll be able to return, according to NPR. She needs a private security detail.

 

[Jive Turkey 12621]

 

[wildcat09 29355]

It would be the most Dem shit ever to pass a law to beef up protection based on a fake right-wing story about Alito needing to be moved to an undisclosed location, indicating that they think pro-choice people are violent radicals and will gladly feed Republican propaganda about how radical their voters supposedly are, before they even tried to pass anything protecting abortion rights.

[bolverk 29694]

If anyone has a few minutes, this is a good read on the history of the "pro-life" movement and its evolution from a primarily Catholic concern to one that now primarily serves the interests of white evangelical Protestants.

 

This Really Is a Different Pro-Life Movement
What happened when a campaign led by northern Catholics was captured by southern evangelicals

By Daniel K. Williams

When the Supreme Court issued its landmark abortion-rights decision, Roe v. Wade, in 1973, the most intransigent opponents of the decision were not the legislatures of southern Bible Belt states such as Mississippi and Oklahoma. Indeed, doctors in many southern states—including Arkansas, Georgia, North and South Carolina, and Virginia—had been performing legal hospital abortions for at least a few carefully defined “therapeutic” reasons for years before Roe. The state legislatures that presented the strongest defiance to legalizing abortion were those of the heavily Catholic states of the Northeast. Barely 10 percent of Massachusetts legislators supported legalizing abortion in 1973, according to an archival American Civil Liberties Union document. Instead of permitting the procedure up to the point of viability (about 28 weeks at the time), as the Supreme Court mandated, the Massachusetts state legislature responded to Roe by passing a bill prohibiting abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy. Rhode Island’s statehouse presented even stronger opposition: It kept abortion clinics out of the state until 1975, when its anti-abortion law was overturned by a federal court.

Today, of course, Massachusetts and the rest of New England are in the vanguard of states that will protect abortion access if—when, as it now appears—Roe v. Wade is rescinded. And many of the southern states that liberalized their abortion laws in the late 1960s and early 1970s are now at the forefront of the movement to restrict abortion.

This was not merely a geographic shift, trading one region for another, but a more fundamental transformation of the anti-abortion movement’s political ideology. In 1973 many of the most vocal opponents of abortion were northern Democrats who believed in an expanded social-welfare state and who wanted to reduce abortion rates through prenatal insurance and federally funded day care. In 2022, most anti-abortion politicians are conservative Republicans who are skeptical of such measures. What happened was a seismic religious and political shift in opposition to abortion that has not occurred in any other Western country.

Spoiler

Before the mid-1970s, active opposition to abortion in the United States looked almost exactly like opposition to abortion in Britain, Western Europe, and Australia: It was concentrated mainly among Catholics. As late as 1980, 70 percent of the members of the nation’s largest anti-abortion organization, the National Right to Life Committee, were Catholic. As a result, the states that were most resistant to abortion legalization were, in most cases, the states with the highest concentration of Catholics, most of which were in the North and leaned Democratic.

This fit the pattern across the Western world: Countries with large numbers of devout Catholics restricted abortion, while those that were predominantly Protestant did not. Sweden—where Catholics made up less than 1 percent of the population—legalized some abortions as early as the 1930s; Ireland did not follow suit until 2018.

If the United States had followed this script, opposition to abortion probably would have weakened with the decline of Catholic-church attendance rates. Like Canada and England, where the leading conservative parties are overwhelmingly supportive of abortion rights, the Republican Party in the United States might have remained what it was for most of the 1970s: a heavily Protestant party whose leaders generally leaned in favor of abortion rights.

But in the United States, the anti-abortion movement did not remain predominantly Catholic. Southern evangelical Protestants, who had once hesitated to embrace the anti-abortion movement in the belief that it was a sectarian Catholic campaign, began enlisting in the cause in the late ’70s and ’80s. Motivated by a conviction that Roe v. Wade was a product of liberal social changes they opposed—including secularization, the sexual revolution, second-wave feminism, and a rights-conscious reading of the Constitution—they made opposition to the ruling a centerpiece of the new Christian right. When they captured control of the Republican Party in the late 20th century, they transformed the GOP from a northern-centered mainline Protestant party that was moderately friendly to abortion rights into a hotbed of southern populism that blended economic libertarianism with Bible Belt moral regulation.

The change was not instantaneous. Although the Republican Party endorsed an anti-abortion constitutional amendment in its party platform in 1976, partly because of its desire to win over northern Catholics, the party at first gave the idea little more than lip service, and pro-abortion-rights conservatives continued to hold leadership positions in the GOP for several more years. In 1983, the Republican-controlled Senate considered an anti-abortion constitutional amendment, but one-third of Republican senators voted against it, dooming it to defeat. However, as evangelical Protestants from the South acquired a greater controlling interest in the GOP, Republicans had a harder time ignoring their desire to restrict abortion. The crucial change came in the midterm elections of 1994, when southern conservatives gave Republicans the votes they needed to take over both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” did not mention abortion, but southern evangelicals insisted that the GOP needed to pay attention to the issue. When the 1996 Republican presidential nominee, Bob Dole, attempted to moderate the party’s platform statement on abortion, right-wing Christian activists blocked the change.

But what really motivated anti-abortion activists to remain loyal to the GOP was not merely a platform statement but the promise of the Supreme Court. They believed that the Republican Party offered them the only path to a conservative judiciary that would overturn Roe v. Wade. If this goal required them to accept a conservative economic platform at odds with the views that many in the movement had held before Roe, well, that was of little matter, because many of the evangelical-Protestant anti-abortion advocates were political conservatives anyway.

As late as the beginning of this century, Texas still had a pro-abortion-rights (Protestant) Republican senator, while Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota were still represented in Congress by anti-abortion Democrats who were Catholic. But as the historically Catholic population of the North became less devout and therefore less inclined to follow the Church’s teaching on abortion—and as a younger generation of progressive Democrats began to view reproductive rights as a nonnegotiable part of the Democratic Party platform—anti-abortion influence in the politically liberal states of the Northeast diminished, while it expanded in the South.

The anti-abortion movement’s political priorities changed as a result. A movement that in the early ’70s had attracted some political progressives who opposed the Vietnam War and capital punishment became associated in the ’80s and ’90s with evangelical-inspired conservative-Christian nationalism. Early activists wanted to create a comprehensive “culture of life,” but many of the evangelicals who joined the movement in the late 20th century wanted to save America from secularism and take back the nation for God.

Only a minority of white evangelical Protestants were politically progressive; the majority (especially in the South) were conservative, and they combined their commitment to moral regulation with a faith in free-market economics and opposition to social-welfare spending. American evangelicalism had long been the most individualistic of the nation’s Christian traditions, and in keeping with that individualistic theology of sin and salvation, most white evangelicals thought that the government’s interest in morality extended only to the punishment of individual vice, not the reduction of poverty. Thus, as the anti-abortion movement’s political influence shifted away from Catholic states toward evangelical-Protestant regions, it abandoned its earlier calls for federal antipoverty programs, expanded maternal-health insurance, and federally funded day care, and instead focused exclusively on the narrower issue of overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal.

A few activists (including a number of the northern Catholic veterans of the movement) remained committed to poverty relief and a comprehensive culture-of-life ethic, but with the Democratic Party’s current unequivocal endorsement of abortion rights, some of them felt politically homeless. Those activists began voting Republican despite their reservations about the party’s stances on social-welfare issues—which brought them into alliance with the southern evangelical conservatives who now had the political power to restrict abortion in their region.

The result is the map we have today: The states that are most likely to restrict abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe are also some of the states with the least generous health-care policies. Half a century ago, many liberal, northern, anti-abortion Democrats saw a connection between poverty reduction and abortion prevention, but today most of those in the southern Bible Belt who oppose abortion do not. They may soon: Because abortion rates are very closely correlated with poverty, opponents of the procedure may find reducing its prevalence difficult without expanding Medicaid or enacting other antipoverty measures.

The enthusiastic embrace of the movement by white evangelicals in the Bible Belt was key to the movement’s political success. Yet the association of the movement with a brand of southern evangelical-conservative politics that opposes antipoverty measures may also mean that the repeal of Roe v. Wade won’t reduce abortion rates as much as the movement expects. If these activists really want to save unborn lives, they may have to look for guidance not only to the southern conservatives who currently lead the movement but to the northern social-welfare advocates whose voices were once dominant in the movement but whose early influence has long been forgotten.

 

[Nivek 16946]

5 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

By the time we reach this point, free elections will likely have gone the way of the dodo. 

that ship is already left.

 

15 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

fuck them.

[Nivek 16946]

2 hours ago, Lurch said:

This guy is tracking them all in a thread

 

 

 

 

Maybe the ladies will wake the fuck up too.  

[Fudge Nuggets 19208]

13 minutes ago, Nivek said:

that ship is already left.

 

fuck them.

See, I think the opposite strategy should be implemented for all judges and politicians.  They get absolutely zero security detail.

Maybe if they had real concerns over their safety they wouldn't act like such dickheads on a consistent basis.

[lemonlime 5503]

11 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

See, I think the opposite strategy should be implemented for all judges and politicians.  They get absolutely zero security detail.

Maybe if they had real concerns over their safety they wouldn't act like such dickheads on a consistent basis.

Fuck no.  For reasons like this:

 

That said, the same SCOTUS justices who thought that Westboro Baptist Church had a First Amendment right to protest funerals, can absolutely reap what they've sowed.  

[Bama Chick 28596]

[Satchel 6938]

Maybe we should codify laws that make our right to privacy less ambiguous.

[Gap03 3308]

1 hour ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

They should get to that right after Congress manages to pass legislation that unfucks everything that the USSC has fucked up recently (gutting of VRA, Citizens United, pending overturning of Roe).  Until then, they can get fucked. 

[Satchel 6938]

3 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

They should get to that right after Congress manages to pass legislation that unfucks everything that the USSC has fucked up recently (gutting of VRA, Citizens United, pending overturning of Roe).  Until then, they can get fucked. 

Very much this^ The real unraveling began with Roberts blowing up the VRA in 2013, and continued with the seating of Gorsuch onto to the Court that he had no right to. Ethics alone should have required him to refuse the seat.

[wildcat09 29355]

44 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Fuck no.  For reasons like this:

 

That said, the same SCOTUS justices who thought that Westboro Baptist Church had a First Amendment right to protest funerals, can absolutely reap what they've sowed.  

SCOTUS has also held that it's constitutional for anti-abortion activists to protest outside the homes of abortion clinic employees. 

Edited May 9, 2022 by wildcat09

[horn4life 3767]

Hey the GOP knows it's a minority party and the only way to make minoirity views law is stacking the Supreme court.  Which they have done.  

It's always important to remember that The GOP is the preferred party of Nazi's and White Nationalists in our country. So when you ask the question of how far would the GOP go?  Hell they would overthrow the government, and destroy American Democracy completely. While of course blaming anybody but themselves, in their pursiut for minority power.  In fact the GOP is today the most dangerous political party in our history. Because people who believe lies so easily and repetitively are easily influenced.  Like on January 6th.

The bad thing about ruling as a minority is that eventually the masses usually eventually wake up.  

THE GOP fucked up the court.  It will never be repaired in our lifetime.  The GOP's wholesale refusal to consider a nominee for an entire year was NOT what the founders intended.  But the GOP has no principles whatsoever at this juncture so destroying one of the foundations of democracy to reverse a 50 year old 7-2 decision by the slimmest of margins is what you get when you have an minority views.

Edited May 9, 2022 by horn4life

[Longhorn_Fan68 33876]

23 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

SCOTUS has also held that it's constitutional for anti-abortion activists to protest outside the homes of abortion clinic employees. 

there's some precedence I can get behind. if Kavanaugh doesn't like it he's welcome to step down

[mchookem 16337]

1 hour ago, horn4life said:

Hey the GOP knows it's a minority party and the only way to make minoirity views law is stacking the Supreme court.  Which they have done.  

It's always important to remember that The GOP is the preferred party of Nazi's and White Nationalists in our country. So when you ask the question of how far would the GOP go?  Hell they would overthrow the government, and destroy American Democracy completely. While of course blaming anybody but themselves, in their pursiut for minority power.  In fact the GOP is today the most dangerous political party in our history. Because people who believe lies so easily and repetitively are easily influenced.  Like on January 6th.

The bad thing about ruling as a minority is that eventually the masses usually eventually wake up.  

THE GOP fucked up the court.  It will never be repaired in our lifetime.  The GOP's wholesale refusal to consider a nominee for an entire year was NOT what the founders intended.  But the GOP has no principles whatsoever at this juncture so destroying one of the foundations of democracy to reverse a 50 year old 7-2 decision by the slimmest of margins is what you get when you have an minority views.

that's about all i got

[Ag with kids 581]

22 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

Yes.  Those are all fucking wrong.

Why do want the law to only work one direction?  I don't.  I want ALL people that do illegal things to suffer consequences.

It's amusing that this post of mine got 4 neg reps.

I guess they don't wan't all people that do illegal things to suffer consequences...or they want the law to only work in one direction.

Odd....

[Ag with kids 581]

10 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Cry more

I'm not.

But, you would be crying on here if the roles were reversed.

And I'd be on your side.

Wrong is wrong.

[Ag with kids 581]

23 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

If they broke the law, arrest them all

At the same time, if you use your position of power to take peoples rights away, you shouldn’t assume you or your family are safe. Humanity and it’s 300,000 years of existence prove otherwise 

Does this apply to the right to bear arms?

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19120]

Just now, Ag with kids said:

Does this apply to the right to bear arms?

[jimmyjazz 45986]

Just now, Ag with kids said:

Does this apply to the right to bear arms?

Has your right to bear arms been taken away?  Asking for those who aren't trolls.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19120]

@Ag with kids just sent me this.

I find it amazing that those that voted to elect people who want to take away my autonomy over my body are shocked that I find their bullshit disingenuous, tired, and call them out on it.  It is fucking hilarious that you think my anger is because I am, "a sad person."  I am angry because you want to impose your fucking beliefs on me.  Go fuck yourself and your "concern".  Stop being a misogynist and an anti-American shitbag.

Edited May 10, 2022 by PenelopeWitherspoon

[Ag with kids 581]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Has your right to bear arms been taken away?  Asking for those who aren't trolls.

Ummm...No.

However, there were NUMEROUS cases that went to SCOTUS trying to do that.

If the RTBA had lost out, would you, or the poster I responded to feel that attacks on the Justices and their families would be ok?

Again, thanks again for being civil.  You know I always try to be, regardless of all the personal attacks on me here.  I've got a thick skin.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19120]

Just now, Ag with kids said:

Ummm...No.

However, there were NUMEROUS cases that went to SCOTUS trying to do that.

If the RTBA had lost out, would you, or the poster I responded to feel that attacks on the Justices and their families would be ok?

Again, thanks again for being civil.  You know I always try to be, regardless of all the personal attacks on me here.  I've got a thick skin.

Yeah, you have a thick skin my ass.  You just PMd me and called me a "sad person" for negging your posts.  You are as thin skinned as your orange idol.  Do us all a favor and stop posting in the cloak room.  Go back to TexAgs where you fit in better.

[Ag with kids 581]

1 minute ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

@Ag with kids just sent me this.

I find it amazing that those that voted to elect people who want to take away my autonomy over my body are shocked that I find their bullshit disingenuous and false.  It is fucking hilarious that you think my anger is because I am, "a sad person."  I am angry because you want to impose your fucking world view on me.  Go fuck yourself and your "concern".  Stop being a misogynist and an anti-American shitbag.

I'm not.  But, you should stop neg rep carpet bombing everyone that you disagree with.  THAT is what makes you a sad person.  And I do truly hope you get better.  Release the hate.  You'll feel better.

[Brisketexan 105161]

11 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Does this apply to the right to bear arms?

How about this -- YES!  The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, like the right to free speech, and the right to privacy.  So, while it may be subject to some regulation (which they already are -- need a special permit to own a full auto firearm, time-place-manner restrictions on speech are allowed, as just quick examples), it remains in place, and provides an actual right to people.

What you are looking at re abortion is as if there was a flat and complete BAN on all firearms, at all times.  NOW maybe you can start to understand the issue.  This is not a regulation of abortion, or even a limitation.  What states -- and federal GOP leadership -- are doing right now is a complete and total ban.  Not akin to regulating firearms by requiring an FFL for transfer, or special permits for full auto; rather, a full, complete, and total ban.  And shit, look at where they're going on contraception.  We're beyond an analogous ban on firearms, now the analogy goes to a ban on anything that can eventually be used as a weapon.

So, YES, compare the court's repeal of the right to privacy to the right to keep and bear arms.  NOW will you give a fuck?

Edited May 9, 2022 by Brisketexan

[jimmyjazz 45986]

As a left-leaning quasi-liberal, it might surprise @Ag with kids that I generally agree with Heller.  I do wonder in what world he thinks it's a gotcha when a law is overturned by SCOTUS, thus increasing citizen's rights, as compared to the case at hand, in which a prior ruling is overturned, thus LIMITING citizen's rights?  It seems the two cases had opposite effects.

[Neonmoon 38129]

12 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Does this apply to the right to bear arms?

 

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

How about this -- YES!  The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, like the right to free speech, and the right to privacy.  So, while it may be subject to some regulation (which they already are -- need a special permit to own a full auto firearm, time-place-manner restrictions on speech are allowed, as just quick examples), it remains in place, and provides an actual right to people.

What you are looking at re abortion is as if there was a flat and complete BAN on all firearms, at all times.  NOW maybe you can start to understand the issue.  This is not a regulation of abortion, or even a limitation.  What states -- and federal GOP leadership -- are doing right now is a complete and total ban.  Not akin to regulating firearms by requiring an FFL for transfer, or special permits for full auto; rather, a full, complete, and total ban.  And shit, look at where they're going on contraception.  We're beyond an analogous ban on firearms, now the analogy goes to a ban on anything that can eventually be used as a weapon.

So, YES, compare the court's repeal of the right to privacy to the right to keep and bear arms.  NOW will you give a fuck?

What brisket said

 

[Ag with kids 581]

Just now, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Yeah, you have a thick skin my ass.  You just PMd me and called me a "sad person" for negging your posts.  You are as thin skinned as your orange idol.  Do us all a favor and stop posting in the cloak room.  Go back to TexAgs where you fit in better.

That's because you have a rep for attacking every single poster that even remotely seems conservative by carpet bombing them with neg reps.  I was only trying to keep that offline for politeness and also to not derail the thread.  But...you keep doing you I guess...

[mchookem 16337]

[jimmyjazz 45986]

Just now, Ag with kids said:

That's because you have a rep for attacking every single poster that even remotely seems conservative by carpet bombing them with neg reps.  I was only trying to keep that offline for politeness and also to not derail the thread.  But...you keep doing you I guess...

FFS, get a room, both of you.

[TexArcher 37984]

10 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

I've got a thick skin.

Well can you put it on then?  Because you're being a bit of a bitch.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19120]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

FFS, get a room, both of you.