The Supremes

[kevwun 15,773]

Oh yes, we are all assholes here.  But you're not our kind of asshole.  So fuck off.

[hobbes2702 13,032]

[DDD Dad 14,332]

6 minutes ago, David Crockett said:

We'll never know since he appears to be uninterested in making a point, instead choosing to posture in front of his e-friends.  The dynamic here is amusing.  It's not my "house" though, so I have at it.
 

You popped into a thread and started making uninformed posts.  Then, when I elected not to go back and regurgitate several prior posts that explained a point I had made (that, with basic reading comprehension would have been apparent to anyone truly wishing to engage in a respectful manner), you resorted to name calling.  At that point it was clear your posts were not worthy of further substantive discussion.  I'm not posturing, and I think my points have been made crystal clear.  As with my prior post, I can't understand them for you.

This isn't my "house" either.  I respect the mods and the others who do engage in good faith discussion here.  That's why I don't shit all over it (although I don't shit all over my own house either).

[David Crockett 267]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

You popped into a thread and started making uninformed posts.  Then, when I elected not to go back and regurgitate several prior posts that explained a point I had made (that, with basic reading comprehension would have been apparent to anyone truly wishing to engage in a respectful manner), you resorted to name calling.  At that point it was clear your posts were not worthy of further substantive discussion.  I'm not posturing, and I think my points have been made crystal clear.  As with my prior post, I can't understand them for you.

This isn't my "house" either.  I respect the mods and the others who do engage in good faith discussion here.  That's why I don't shit all over it (although I don't shit all over my own house either).

Stating my opinion is hardly uninformed and the fact that it might not align with yours doesn't make it so.  You made a passive-aggressive comment in response and I gave you an opportunity to clearly state your thoughts instead.  You chose to stick with cheap-and-lazy and I called you the pussy you were being.  That's no more disrespectful than passive-aggressive condescension; but it is certainly more direct.

And now you're doing it again.  "I can't understand them for you" implies that your posts are both A+ and "correct", and that any dissenting opinion is simply because I don't have the horsepower to "understand it."  First of all, I never read any of your previous posts.  My initial post (my opinion) wasn't in response to any of your posts which I never read.  Secondly, you ain't the only person in the virtual room on the right side of the distribution.  

For everyone else rallying up the downvotes, go for it.  "Winning" a little tiff on the internet may mean something to you, but I assure you being run out of here will change my day exactly zero.  I'm a UT alum and enjoy UT sports, which is what led me to the site.  I also enjoy intellectual stimulation and thought there might be some useful debate in this thread, which is what led me here.  I can live without either.

[Francisco 2.0 32,389]

Just now, David Crockett said:

Stating my opinion is hardly uninformed and the fact that it might not align with yours doesn't make it so.  You made a passive-aggressive comment in response and I gave you an opportunity to clearly state your thoughts instead.  You chose to stick with cheap-and-lazy and I called you the pussy you were being.  That's no more disrespectful than passive-aggressive condescension; but it is certainly more direct.

And now you're doing it again.  "I can't understand them for you" implies that your posts are both A+ and "correct", and that any dissenting opinion is simply because I don't have the horsepower to "understand it."  First of all, I never read any of your previous posts.  My initial post (my opinion) wasn't in response to any of your posts which I never read.  Secondly, you ain't the only person in the virtual room on the right side of the distribution.  

For everyone else rallying up the downvotes, go for it.  "Winning" a little tiff on the internet may mean something to you, but I assure you being run out of here will change my day exactly zero.  I'm a UT alum and enjoy UT sports, which is what led me to the site.  I also enjoy intellectual stimulation and thought there might be some useful debate in this thread, which is what led me here.  I can live without either.

 

My sweet summer child.  

 

 

[royiv 9,283]

2 minutes ago, David Crockett said:

I also enjoy intellectual stimulation

[Queen Bitch 1,692]

We’re negging you bc you hijacked the conversation hours ago and won’t shut up. I personally want to hear from other people, not you and your clown-ass  “NOTICE ME!!!!!!!” energy.

[Sleep off ugly 279]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

Agree on primaries often being both more powerful and detrimental.

There’s a certain poster here named Kevin who would like a word.

[DDD Dad 14,332]

13 minutes ago, David Crockett said:

Stating my opinion is hardly uninformed and the fact that it might not align with yours doesn't make it so.  You made a passive-aggressive comment in response and I gave you an opportunity to clearly state your thoughts instead.  You chose to stick with cheap-and-lazy and I called you the pussy you were being.  That's no more disrespectful than passive-aggressive condescension; but it is certainly more direct.

And now you're doing it again.  "I can't understand them for you" implies that your posts are both A+ and "correct", and that any dissenting opinion is simply because I don't have the horsepower to "understand it."  First of all, I never read any of your previous posts.  My initial post (my opinion) wasn't in response to any of your posts which I never read.  Secondly, you ain't the only person in the virtual room on the right side of the distribution.  

For everyone else rallying up the downvotes, go for it.  "Winning" a little tiff on the internet may mean something to you, but I assure you being run out of here will change my day exactly zero.  I'm a UT alum and enjoy UT sports, which is what led me to the site.  I also enjoy intellectual stimulation and thought there might be some useful debate in this thread, which is what led me here.  I can live without either.

I mean, come on.  Did you not even read my response to JBJ (checks notes) two posts above my reply to yours?  The post where I said that from a purely jurisprudential standard I had issues with Roe (and Griswold for that matter) but could not agree with "leaving the issue to the states" after 30 years of life experience and observation of how our government ACTUALLY works rather than how I thought it SHOULD work based on the language of the Constitution?

Your posts deserve condescension because they are in fact uninformed, and for that matter pretty fucking condescending themselves. 

Also, I'm not "rallying up downvotes."  I haven't negged you once.  

Maybe come back as a new username again and do better next time.

Edited June 24, 2022 by DDD Dad

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,580]

19 minutes ago, David Crockett said:

If you'd like to make your point about about corporate personhood, then by all means make it.

The point is as self-evident as you being willfully obtuse. You roll out your iteration of this ostensible conservative principle to rationalize overturning Roe- If it's not a right explicitly and specifically enumerated in the Constitution, it's a question left to the states- ignoring (and pretending you don't have an opinion on) Citizens United, in which the SC conservative justices go way beyond that to the point of creating an entity- The Corporate Person- neither mentioned in the Constitution or commonly understood as Walmart, The Person or Exxon The Dude, in order to bestow rights upon. It's as ludicrous as you acting like you don't notice a double standard punching you in the face. 

[gmr548 16,576]

I was surprised to learn that the judge who wrote the majority opinion for the notoriously liberal 5th circuit when it ruled the MS abortion law unconstitutional is an 80+ year old Regan appointee. Bama law grad in 1964. I don’t need three guesses as to where that man lies on the social-ideological spectrum. And yet even he not only voted to strike down the law as unconstitutional, he wrote the goddamn opinion.

That’s how far out there this SCOTUS is. There is nothing off the table and thinking otherwise is a phenomenal act of willful ignorance.

[Sleep off ugly 279]

2 minutes ago, Sleep off ugly said:

There’s a certain poster here named Kevin who would like a word.

Fuck me, won’t let me edit this…swear to God I read primaries as primates.

 

I’m gonna go ahead and sit this one out.

[David Crockett 267]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

I mean, come on.  Did you not even read my response to JBJ (checks notes) two posts above my reply to yours?  The post where I said that from a purely jurisprudential standard I had issues with Roe (and Griswold for that matter) but could not agree with "leaving the issue to the states" after 30 years of life experience and observation of how our government ACTUALLY works rather than how I thought it SHOULD work based on the language of the Constitution?

Your posts deserve condescension because they are in fact uninformed, and for that matter pretty fucking condescending themselves.  Maybe come back as a new username again and do better next time.

No, I didn't.  But based on the bolded part, we have similar life experience and could have had a productive conversation.  Do you think you're the only person around with decades of close observation of government function?  Your opinion that my opinion is uninformed makes it so no more than my opinion that your opinion is shit (I don't necessarily think that) makes it so.  And claiming to be the arbiter of what merits condescension displays a remarkable level of hubris.  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,868]

1 minute ago, David Crockett said:

No, I didn't.  But based on the bolded part, we have similar life experience and could have had a productive conversation.  Do you think you're the only person around with decades of close observation of government function?  Your opinion that my opinion is uninformed makes it so no more than my opinion that your opinion is shit (I don't necessarily think that) makes it so.  And claiming to be the arbiter of what merits condescension displays a remarkable level of hubris.  

cya donkey!

[DDD Dad 14,332]

1 minute ago, David Crockett said:

No, I didn't.  But based on the bolded part, we have similar life experience and could have had a productive conversation.  Do you think you're the only person around with decades of close observation of government function?  Your opinion that my opinion is uninformed makes it so no more than my opinion that your opinion is shit (I don't necessarily think that) makes it so.  And claiming to be the arbiter of what merits condescension displays a remarkable level of hubris.  

Your opinion was uninformed because you hadn't bothered to read my prior posts.

[David Crockett 267]

6 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

The point is as self-evident as you being willfully obtuse. You roll out your iteration of this ostensible conservative principle to rationalize overturning Roe- If it's not a right explicitly and specifically enumerated in the Constitution, it's a question left to the states- ignoring (and pretending you don't have an opinion on) Citizens United, in which the SC conservative justices go way beyond that to the point of creating an entity- The Corporate Person- neither mentioned in the Constitution or commonly understood as Walmart, The Person or Exxon The Dude, in order to bestow rights upon. It's as ludicrous as you acting like you don't notice a double standard punching you in the face. 

Who says I agree with Citizens United?  You created the straw man; you whack away at it.

I'd also offer that you're not making as much of a parallel argument as you think you are.  

[Guest]

Thanks to this ruling, Republicans have made a bigger policy impact than Democrats in the two years that Dems have head the House, Senate, and Presidency.

[David Crockett 267]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Your opinion was uninformed because you hadn't bothered to read my prior posts.

So had I read your posts, I would have realized that my opinion was in error?  Or are you assuming my post was in response to or in rebuttal of your posts?

You're one arrogant cat, I'll give you that.

[Macklemore 2,876]

1 hour ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

You want to know what infringes on my rights as a United States citizen?  Fucking blue laws in states like TX where I can't buy alcohol on Sundays before noon or at all.  How bout the Supreme Court gets on that one as some of us in this country don't give a fuck that it's the "lords day" so we shouldn't be allowed to buy booze so we can go to church.  No offense to those of you that are nice Christians on this board but the fucking religious right (which is behind this push to end Roe V Wade) are the worst fucking humans on the face of this Earth.   

Going after and putting an end to porn is next. Look what they did to sex workers by putting the screws to Backpage and Craigslist causing them to shut down hooker ads or close shop entirely. Say goodbye to PornHub. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Macklemore

[Starfleet Command 441]

8 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

I was surprised to learn that the judge who wrote the majority opinion for the notoriously liberal 5th circuit when it ruled the MS abortion law unconstitutional is an 80+ year old Regan appointee. Bama law grad in 1964. I don’t need three guesses as to where that man lies on the social-ideological spectrum. And yet even he not only voted to strike down the law as unconstitutional, he wrote the goddamn opinion.

That’s how far out there this SCOTUS is. There is nothing off the table and thinking otherwise is a phenomenal act of willful ignorance.

It's a freakshow is what it is. 

[DDD Dad 14,332]

4 minutes ago, David Crockett said:

You're one arrogant cat, I'll give you that.

Also, enough with the ad hominem.  Attack my opinions all you want, but calling me names or trying to insult me is just lazy.  Oh, and another thing, you admitting that you hadn't bothered to read my posts before clapping at me makes my point.

Edited June 24, 2022 by DDD Dad

[Sawbonz 27,545]

2 hours ago, David Crockett said:

"Everyone who doesn't agree with me must be a [troll]."

 

You don't even know my stance on abortion.  It may very well be different than my view on today's ruling.  Maybe intellectual honesty allows for the analysis of one to be free of influence from the other.   

Not today motherfucker

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,868]

5 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Also, enough with the ad hominem.  Attack my opinions all you want, but calling me names or trying to insult me is just lazy.  Oh, and another thing, you admitting that you hadn't bothered to read my posts before clapping at me makes my point.

he gone. we can get back to the adults talking

[DDD Dad 14,332]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

he gone. we can get back to the adults talking

 

[TwiceHorn 31,446]

16 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

I was surprised to learn that the judge who wrote the majority opinion for the notoriously liberal 5th circuit when it ruled the MS abortion law unconstitutional is an 80+ year old Regan appointee. Bama law grad in 1964. I don’t need three guesses as to where that man lies on the social-ideological spectrum. And yet even he not only voted to strike down the law as unconstitutional, he wrote the goddamn opinion.

That’s how far out there this SCOTUS is. There is nothing off the table and thinking otherwise is a phenomenal act of willful ignorance.

Some of the older judges of the Fifth Circuit date back to when it was legitimately one of the best of the regional circuits and largely non-partisan.  I imagine some of that rubbed off on them, whatever their political affiliation.

[DDD Dad 14,332]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Some of the older judges of the Fifth Circuit date back to when it was legitimately one of the best of the regional circuits and largely non-partisan.  I imagine some of that rubbed off on them, whatever their political affiliation.

My judge was on the Fifth before it split.  Nixon appointee.  /csb

[South Austin 52,462]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Some of the older judges of the Fifth Circuit date back to when it was legitimately one of the best of the regional circuits and largely non-partisan.  I imagine some of that rubbed off on them, whatever their political affiliation.

Grady Jolly O.G.

[elfenix 34,229]

 

20 minutes ago, David Crockett said:

No, I didn't.  But based on the bolded part, we have similar life experience and could have had a productive conversation.  Do you think you're the only person around with decades of close observation of government function?  Your opinion that my opinion is uninformed makes it so no more than my opinion that your opinion is shit (I don't necessarily think that) makes it so.  And claiming to be the arbiter of what merits condescension displays a remarkable level of hubris.  

 

Edited June 24, 2022 by elfenix

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,580]

11 minutes ago, David Crockett said:

Who says I agree with Citizens United?  You created the straw man; you whack away at it.

This isn't about you. It's about conservatives using one standard to rationalize conservative justices' ruling on Roe that they completely abandon in other rulings. 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,868]

Just now, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

This isn't about you. It's about conservatives using one standard to rationalize conservative justices' ruling on Roe that they completely abandon in other rulings. 

 

you're talking to air. he gone

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,580]

5 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

you're talking to air. he gone

...like sand in an hourglass...

...or Cartman in a Casa Bonita...

[South Austin 52,462]

9 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

you're talking to air. he gone

Back to the wild frontier.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,868]

[Dahobbs 17,532]

Honestly, as long as we are completely ignoring precedent and the law, I don't see why this court wouldn't go as far as taking away women's suffrage or even the 13th amendment. These rulings are divorced from anything like traditional legal analysis. Everything is at risk. I'm waiting for the left and true moderates to get violent. It may be the only way to preserve something of this country. 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6,559]

43 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

Going after and putting an end to porn is next. Look what they did to sex workers by putting the screws to Backpage and Craigslist causing them to shut down hooker ads or close shop entirely. Say goodbye to PornHub. 

They can take pornhub from my cold, dead sticky hand. 

[C-Man 27,208]

55 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Thanks to this ruling, Republicans have made a bigger policy impact than Democrats in the two years that Dems have head the House, Senate, and Presidency.

[Neonmoon 38,129]

32 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

You can also replace woman with minority, homosexual, poor person, disabled, mentally ill, homeless, small business owner, teacher, etc

[brakeman 28,359]

 

Corporate donations to anti-abortion committees since 2016.

 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,868]

3 minutes ago, brakeman said:

 

Corporate donations to anti-abortion committees since 2016.

 

 

Welp, guess I'm about about to research 4 new avenues for products i consume. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Longhorn_Fan68

[tchookem 3,900]

I wonder if the conservatives on this board realize Dobbs is going to go down in history with the likes of Dred Scott and Plessy.

They'll be long dead and buried. History's judgement isn't something they'll have to experience, but these Liberal tears are here and now.

[tchookem 3,900]

I don't know, I say we neg him into Bolivian and let gawd sort it out

Are you suggesting we abort the sock before it grows any more?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,868]

2 minutes ago, tchookem said:

3 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I don't know, I say we neg him into Bolivian and let gawd sort it out

Are you suggesting we abort the sock before it grows any more?

It was never fully human, so it's all good

[jimmyjazz 45,898]

4 hours ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

Depends on how you go about eating the dicks, really.

User name checks out.

[Neonmoon 38,129]

NSIAP

[Michael Knight 12,977]

3 hours ago, David Crockett said:

Perfect example of an argument with no basis in fact.  The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.  You know they could add the right to abortion to the Constitution via an amendment, right?

Explain Plessy v Ferguson then

[Hookah Horns 3,083]

27 minutes ago, brakeman said:

 

Corporate donations to anti-abortion committees since 2016.

 

 

Several of these companies own my ass. Sad. 

[A-Tex Devil 2,446]

1 hour ago, David Crockett said:

Stating my opinion is hardly uninformed and the fact that it might not align with yours doesn't make it so.  You made a passive-aggressive comment in response and I gave you an opportunity to clearly state your thoughts instead.  You chose to stick with cheap-and-lazy and I called you the pussy you were being.  That's no more disrespectful than passive-aggressive condescension; but it is certainly more direct.

And now you're doing it again.  "I can't understand them for you" implies that your posts are both A+ and "correct", and that any dissenting opinion is simply because I don't have the horsepower to "understand it."  First of all, I never read any of your previous posts.  My initial post (my opinion) wasn't in response to any of your posts which I never read.  Secondly, you ain't the only person in the virtual room on the right side of the distribution.  

For everyone else rallying up the downvotes, go for it.  "Winning" a little tiff on the internet may mean something to you, but I assure you being run out of here will change my day exactly zero.  I'm a UT alum and enjoy UT sports, which is what led me to the site.  I also enjoy intellectual stimulation and thought there might be some useful debate in this thread, which is what led me here.  I can live without either.

Honestly, the bolded/underlined is the problem with this country.  People think their uninformed opinion is worthy of acknowledgment in the face of morality and facts.  It’s cool to have an opinion, but most opinions, frankly, are uninformed.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,190]

2 hours ago, David Crockett said:

Stating my opinion is hardly uninformed and the fact that it might not align with yours doesn't make it so.  You made a passive-aggressive comment in response and I gave you an opportunity to clearly state your thoughts instead.  You chose to stick with cheap-and-lazy and I called you the pussy you were being.  That's no more disrespectful than passive-aggressive condescension; but it is certainly more direct.

And now you're doing it again.  "I can't understand them for you" implies that your posts are both A+ and "correct", and that any dissenting opinion is simply because I don't have the horsepower to "understand it."  First of all, I never read any of your previous posts.  My initial post (my opinion) wasn't in response to any of your posts which I never read.  Secondly, you ain't the only person in the virtual room on the right side of the distribution.  

For everyone else rallying up the downvotes, go for it.  "Winning" a little tiff on the internet may mean something to you, but I assure you being run out of here will change my day exactly zero.  I'm a UT alum and enjoy UT sports, which is what led me to the site.  I also enjoy intellectual stimulation and thought there might be some useful debate in this thread, which is what led me here.  I can live without either.

Tell me you’re a Moby sock without telling me you’re a Moby sock.

[Biff Tannen 45,673]

lol.  @Incredulity is randomly negging me on quotes that have nothing to do with him.  what a pussy.

[Incredulity 11,663]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

lol.  @Incredulity is randomly negging me on quotes that have nothing to do with him.  what a pussy.

Fuck you.  Hows that?