Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
  On 6/24/2022 at 4:43 PM, 6th Street said:

The people this hurts most are poor minorities in shitty SEC states where there was only like 1 or 2 clinics anyways. Those with the means will simply travel to another state for the procedure. That said, voter turnout is extremely weak in the low income minority demographic, and sadly not even this ruling will change that apathy.

Expand  

Well, yeah. Except it won't be quite that simple for people with the means to travel, given that in some states it will be illegal to do so.  Imagine being arrested in Texas because you traveled to Colorado two months ago to get high.

Edited by TexasHooch
Posted

nancy-pelosi-state-of-the-union.gif

How about them Democrats?!

What a fucking joke of a party.  The only good thing that may happen from this, at least I hope it does, is a turnover in D leadership top to bottom.  Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, etc... are pathetic, weak and completely incapable of devising a strategy to put the brakes on this conservative charge.  Real leaders need to emerge, the kind that would take a bullet in defense of their beliefs.  I don't care if they are left, center, or whatever.  The only policy that matters right now is preserving democracy and electoral sanctity, preventing further rights from being taken, and regaining the rights that are being stripped away.  And that needs to be overseen by people who aren't in it just for the money and influence.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 4:58 PM, TexasHooch said:

Well, yeah. Except it won't be quite that simple for people with the means to travel, given that in some states it will be illeagal to do so.  Imagine being arrested in Texas because you traveled to Colorado two months ago to get high.

Expand  

You joke, but states have already tried to pass laws that would penalize actions taken in another state. It's a clear violation of the freedom of travel and of the interstate commerce clause, but it's calvinball - there are no rules anymore. Anything goes if the refs like it

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 4:44 PM, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

And….. the NRA wins again.  They can get gun and anti gun people to buy weapons.  Yay.

Expand  

Good thing there's several ranges close to DC, where non gun owners go to shoot their guns.  There's no lack of guns anywhere in the states but for some reason we have this notion there is.  There's this notion that people in former gun controlled areas, people didn't own guns.  That's not what gun control ever meant but whatever.  Most just don't carry but now, that shouldn't be an issue.  Crime should go down now, right?  Just like in all the freedom loving states where it hasn't.  

Posted (edited)
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:01 PM, Captainant said:

You joke, but states have already tried to pass laws that would penalize actions taken in another state. It's a clear violation of the freedom of travel and of the interstate commerce clause, but it's calvinball - there are no rules anymore. Anything goes if the refs like it

Expand  

I'm not joking.  I'm dead serious. Missouri has already tried it in relation to abortion. Some state will get it done.  

Thankfully, it will get legally challanged and will never pass muster with the Courts.  (OK now I'm joking).

 

 

Edited by TexasHooch
autocorrect
Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 3:11 PM, mdmost said:

Next up is gay marriage, same sex unions, and contraception. If you don't believe me, read it from the utter piece of shit himself.

 

Expand  

Impeach that motherfucker for his seditious enabling conflict of interest. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 4:58 PM, TexasHooch said:

Well, yeah. Except it won't be quite that simple for people with the means to travel, given that in some states it will be illegal to do so.  Imagine being arrested in Texas because you traveled to Colorado two months ago to get high.

Expand  

Two things:

1) I don't think that travel restrictions are enforceable

2) that is the price you pay for living in a shitty, backwards state like MS or LA

Posted (edited)
  On 6/24/2022 at 4:19 PM, Brisketexan said:

So, my peacenik, gun control wife just called me to suggest that we look into procuring ARs of our own, because she sees what’s coming.

This course is unsustainable. The center cannot hold - it has actually already collapsed. History tells us that this sort of dynamic ends in blood. And so it will. It is what they want, and when one side wants it, it happens.

Expand  

I encourage all my liberal friends to joining me in gun ownership.  Buy Ruger 10-22 rifles for the skittish/wives who are afraid of guns.   No recoil, 25 round mags and you can carry lots of .22 ammo. 

 

 

Edited by Gatorubet
Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:10 PM, Gatorubet said:

I encourage all my liberal friends to joining me in gun ownership.  Buy Ruger 10-22 rifles for the skittish/wives who are afraid of guns.   No recoil, 25 round mags and you can carry lots of .22 ammo. 

Also, Thomas does not need to be near my deer stand. Ever.  Hunting is dangerous. 

 

Expand  

You sound obese

Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:09 PM, 6th Street said:

Two things:

1) I don't think that travel restrictions are enforceable

2) that is the price you pay for living in a shitty, backwards state like MS or LA

Expand  

Good luck convincing Ken Paxton and Texas law enforcement.

Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:13 PM, JBJ said:

The opposite is closer to true.  They lifted a SCOTUS-created moral imposition.

Expand  

This reasoning will be equally applicable to gay marriage and gay acts of love. Congratulations, bigot. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Fuck You 1
Posted (edited)

 

  On 6/24/2022 at 5:16 PM, Aqua Buddha said:

They’ll make up a reason.

Expand  

This won't be a restriction of travel per se, they'd be restricting your behavior when outside of the laws of your State.  There are plenty of laws already on the books restricting behavior.  This will be a very big new wrinkle to it but it will absolutely be attempted.

Edited by TexasHooch
Posted (edited)
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:18 PM, Captainant said:

This reasoning will be equally applicable to gay marriage and gay acts of love. Congratulations, bigot. 

Expand  

It can be applied to a wide variety of SCOTUS overturns.  Still, removing a moral imposition is not the same as imposing an opposite one.

Edited by JBJ
  • Fuck You 9
Posted

Voting, or not voting in this case, has consequences. People that say they are more liberal but don’t vote because they don’t think their vote counts are getting payback. The Republicans are taking our rights away and cramming their religious beliefs down our throats. We are closer now to a Handmaid’s Tale type of country. As a religious nut friend I know said, “this is all God’s doing because we as a country couldn’t do it on our own.”

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:21 PM, JBJ said:

It can be applied to pretty much any SCOTUS overturn.  Still, removing a moral imposition is not the same as imposing an opposite one.

Expand  

"Criminalizing conduct is actually removing a moral imposition!"

Fuck you, you disingenuous hack.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:21 PM, JBJ said:

It can be applied to a wide variety of SCOTUS overturns.  Still, removing a moral imposition is not the same as imposing an opposite one.

Expand  

Yes, and that logic of "removing a moral imposition" will be extended to remove the moral imposition of marriage not between a man and a woman. That's where this is headed.

I know that's what you actually want, but it's horribly theocratic and fascist. 

  • Like 1
Posted

And once again, for all the but both sides arguers--just say you don't know or don't care.  It's the lesser of the dumb responses.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:24 PM, Captainant said:

Yes, and that logic of "removing a moral imposition" will be extended to remove the moral imposition of marriage not between a man and a woman. That's where this is headed.

I know that's what you actually want, but it's horribly theocratic and fascist. 

Expand  

All of this is more in line with a police state. That's the only way it can be upheld.  

Posted
  Quote

 Justice Scalia went so far as to suggest that overturning Roe and Casey will get the Court out of the “abortion-umpiring business” because doing so would “return this matter to the people” to determine “State by State, whether this practice should be allowed.”

As we make clear in this Article, the opposite is true: overturning Roe and Casey will create a novel world of complicated, interjurisdictional legal conflicts over abortion.

Instead of creating stability and certainty, it will lead to profound confusion because advocates on all sides of the abortion controversy will not stop at state borders in their efforts to apply their policies as broadly as possible. Antiabortion activists have made clear that overturning Roe is the first step toward their goal of making abortion illegal nationwide. To accomplish that goal, without Roe’s minimum protection, antiabortion jurisdictions not only will pass laws that criminalize in-state abortion, but also attempt to ban any abortion that has a relationship to their state.

A recent Missouri bill, for instance, would apply Missouri’s current abortion restrictions to out-of-state abortions performed on Missouri citizens. 7 After Roe is overturned, antiabortion jurisdictions will likely go further and try to prohibit their citizens from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion. 

Expand  

https://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1515&context=fac_articles

Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 4:56 PM, washparkhorn said:

The economics of the decision are disastrous.

With the Republican gutting of the safety net that existed in 1971 - there are going to be a lot of hungry mouths to feed - if they get fed at all. 

Unwanted children create unfunded negative externalities.  

Expand  

Crime will go up and the need for more welfare

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:21 PM, JBJ said:

It can be applied to a wide variety of SCOTUS overturns.  Still, removing a moral imposition is not the same as imposing an opposite one.

Expand  

What moral imposition was removed?  

I can't wait for this answer.

Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 4:51 PM, Sbbruin said:

You spend too much time in Texas.  This is not the case.  The population in blue states is still greater than the red states.  You are just surrounded by the Texags mentality and think that applies to the nation.  It does not.

Expand  

Dude, California had more Trump voters than any other state. Have you spent any time in the neighboring county to your south?

Posted

RBG set the country back ages and ages by wanting to cling to the limelight a couple extra years. I hope she’s never looked back on as any kind of hero.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 3
Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:28 PM, royiv said:

Dude, California had more Trump voters than any other state. Have you spent any time in the neighboring county to your south?

Expand  

Yes, when you have 40 million people, you will have the most of just about everything.

  1. California (Population: 39,613,493)
  2. Texas (Population: 29,730,311)
  3. Florida (Population: 21,944,577)
  4. New York (Population: 19,299,981)
  5. Pennsylvania (Population: 12,804,123)
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:24 PM, Captainant said:

Yes, and that logic of "removing a moral imposition" will be extended to remove the moral imposition of marriage not between a man and a woman. That's where this is headed.

I know that's what you actually want, but it's horribly theocratic and fascist. 

Expand  

What I want is a SCOTUS to follow the laws as reasonably interpreted (which does have wiggle room,  Thomas and Sotomayor are equally retarded in my book).  Not make up policy because they think it's good policy.  States and legislatures make policy.  They can even make alter the fundamental laws-of-the-land if enough work together.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:31 PM, JBJ said:

What I want is a SCOTUS to follow the laws as reasonably interpreted (which does have wiggle room,  Thomas and Sotomayor are equally retarded in my book).  Not make up policy because they think it's good policy.  States and legislatures make policy.  They can even make alter the fundamental laws-of-the-land if enough work together.

Expand  

Do you believe that you have a Constitutional right to any degree of bodily autonomy?

Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:31 PM, JBJ said:

What I want is a SCOTUS to follow the laws as reasonably interpreted (which does have wiggle room,  Thomas and Sotomayor are equally retarded in my book).  Not make up policy because they think it's good policy.  States and legislatures make policy.  They can even make alter the fundamental laws-of-the-land if enough work together.

Expand  

Have you identified the "moral imposition" that was removed yet?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:27 PM, DixonHur said:

What moral imposition was removed?  

I can't wait for this answer.

Expand  

Roe and Casey prevented legislatures from making certain policy decisions on abortion.

 

  On 6/24/2022 at 5:33 PM, wildcat09 said:

Do you believe that you have a Constitutional right to any degree of bodily autonomy?

Expand  

Yes, even with respect toncertain abortions.  I actually would have joined Roberts' opinion.

Edited by JBJ
  • Fuck You 2
Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:35 PM, JBJ said:

Roe and Casey prevented legislatures from making certain policy decisions on abortion.

Expand  

How is that a moral imposition?  

You do know what the word moral means, right?

Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:37 PM, DixonHur said:

How is that a moral imposition?  

You do know what the word moral means, right?

Expand  

Yes.  How is it not?  If it's not a moral imposition, what type is it?

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:29 PM, Helobious said:

RBG set the country back ages and ages by wanting to cling to the limelight a couple extra years. I hope she’s never looked back on as any kind of hero.

Expand  

We can always count on you for really stupid opinions 

Posted
  On 6/24/2022 at 5:00 PM, Goredho said:
nancy-pelosi-state-of-the-union.gif

How about them Democrats?!
What a fucking joke of a party.  The only good thing that may happen from this, at least I hope it does, is a turnover in D leadership top to bottom.  Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, etc... are pathetic, weak and completely incapable of devising a strategy to put the brakes on this conservative charge.  Real leaders need to emerge, the kind that would take a bullet in defense of their beliefs.  I don't care if they are left, center, or whatever.  The only policy that matters right now is preserving democracy and electoral sanctity, preventing further rights from being taken, and regaining the rights that are being stripped away.  And that needs to be overseen by people who aren't in it just for the money and influence.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Hopefully the first issue explains how the hell we make this happen.
  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...