ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Dem/libs love the peaceful Muslim religion. How many green/purple/orange hairs would like to move to Turkey?

I spent 18 months in Turkey. They had a special police force. Forget what it was called, but when they showed up the people ran away fast. I watched them disperse in person once.
 
Just sayin.......

"It's not merely the voters who deserve credit, but then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as well. He held up Garland's nomination, which was made during an election year, until the next president took office to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Ultimately that was Trump, who nominated Neil Gorsuch in 2017.

Thanks to McConnell as majority leader, Trump made 245 judicial appointments. His 220 Article III federal judges in a four year period are second only to President Jimmy Carter's 260 Article III judges.

In addition to holding Garland's nomination, McConnell defended allowing Justice Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to go through in an election year. The difference is that the White House and Senate were controlled by opposite political parties in 2016, but by the same party in 2020. "

Wow, WHAT A LEADER !!

"Popik stressed McConnell's role as "a stalwart" when it comes to the pro-life cause, especially with his most significant contribution of getting Trump's judicial nominees confirmed, allowing pro-life laws to be upheld. She highlighted how McConnell also held firm during the difficult confirmation hearings, especially when it comes to Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Popik referred to such a role McConnell played as his "lasting impact" and his "legacy."

Three cheers for good ole Mitch!!

 
Dem/libs love the peaceful Muslim religion. How many green/purple/orange hairs would like to move to Turkey?



Turkey was historically moderate.too - those days are gone though

Here's a link highlighting a Muslim attack on another gay-club

Noahide laws by the Jews also prohibits homesexuality as acceptable practice

Mayne the gay 'community' has it better than most realize surrounded by Christians or those who don't care -- ?
BBC Link - Oslo Shooting
 
14% is lower than the natural miscarriage rate. The hospital measured rate is around 20%. But many women miscarry before they even know they are pregnant so the actual rate is around 25%. Maga morons are bad at common sense.
0gltjwqjly791.png
 
Does anyone care that "The vast majority of those involved were peaceful and law-abiding"? Why mention them? They are not why the article exists.

"A California man was arrested and charged with attempted murder after he allegedly attacked a police officer during a protest of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent abortion reversal, police said.

Michael Ortiz, 30, and Juliana Bernado, 23, were among those arrested during a clash with police officers in the downtown Los Angeles area Friday as people gathered to protest the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Los Angeles Police Department Chief Michel Moore said.

"The vast majority of those involved were peaceful and law-abiding, however, a much smaller group of individuals took to the streets with the intention of creating chaos and destruction," the LAPD said."
So was the crowd along the Parade route in Dallas in 1963.
 
There is the American judicial system people died for. Maybe.... Thought.... How about proven beyond any reasonable doubt? Does that not sound more like the American way?

for instance.... She says "he threatened to kill me".... cop asks my side and I say "She is nuts and I made her get all her shit out of my house and just want her to leave me alone". The cop takes her side and I lose my shit until I go to court and prove I am not a threat. Do you really not see how this is gonna work to just get rid of guns period? Are you that naive?
So tell me what's wrong with this FL red flag law.

Judge has hearings 2/week to decide if you get your gun back. Net, we're talking 3-4 days of not having it because someone is mad at you.

 
Killing a baby is bad. Raping a woman is bad. Forcing a woman to change the rest of her entire life against her will because of a rapist's decision is just cruel.
The clump of cells doesn't even have a consciousness yet but the woman does.
How would you feel if it was you?
“Yet”. It’s very shaky moral ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: warrior-cat
I don't see much to this.
I read about 39-40 pages of the bill - it's about 80 some pages.long

The fact that its proposed as a means to fix anything before we take serious looks at other factors that drive shootings etc -- that's not good

And the thing is clearly being called a 'starting point'

The mental health expansion within the schools is spring boarding off of something we talked about on here before -- there WAS an initiative to get mental health screening going for school aged kids and pregnant women under Bush Jr

When the state takes on this role -- it WILL become increasingly weaponized

It'll follow the same or similar path that the Soviet Union established -- I,e, any resistance to communism is evidence of mental illness :)

If we can't even drug test politicians -- why would be want these asshats weighing in on the sanity of the rank and file citizenry ?

You KNOW that part of it's going to go FUBAR sideways ASAP
 
I read about 39-40 pages of the bill - it's about 80 some pages.long

The fact that its proposed as a means to fix anything before we take serious looks at other factors that drive shootings etc -- that's not good

And the thing is clearly being called a 'starting point'

The mental health expansion within the schools is spring boarding off of something we talked about on here before -- there WAS an initiative to get mental health screening going for school aged kids and pregnant women under Bush Jr

When the state takes on this role -- it WILL become increasingly weaponized

It'll follow the same or similar path that the Soviet Union established -- I,e, any resistance to communism is evidence of mental illness :)

If we can't even drug test politicians -- why would be want these asshats weighing in on the sanity of the rank and file citizenry ?

You KNOW that part of it's going to go FUBAR sideways ASAP
I have not read it. But based on the age restriction thread, and based on talk shows, etc., there are evidently a lot of people who think that schools should now be the front lines in mental health screening. Imagine that job being tacked on to an already difficult role. I wonder if schools can get sued if they miss flagging some lunatic.
 
I have not read it. But based on the age restriction thread, and based on talk shows, etc., there are evidently a lot of people who think that schools should now be the front lines in mental health screening. Imagine that job being tacked on to an already difficult role. I wonder if schools can get sued if they miss flagging some lunatic.


Medicare wil oversee it along with Health & Human Services

Same Dept that managed CDC;s "Pandemic Response" -- will be coming up with the indicators, questionnaires and reports on which children, which schools and which regions demonstrated the highest risk populations w/'mental red flags"

There will also be new mental health centers established and put in various locations - probably will eventually tie in with the concept of "community policing" etc

It will also be a hiring question for employers - they'll be doing some kind of check to see uf you've popped on a mental health list as a result of the new surveillance

Staw purchases are punishable with up to 15 years in prison

I will prob read the rest tonight
 
I have not read it. But based on the age restriction thread, and based on talk shows, etc., there are evidently a lot of people who think that schools should now be the front lines in mental health screening. Imagine that job being tacked on to an already difficult role. I wonder if schools can get sued if they miss flagging some lunatic.
Just think about trying to be a kid today, crazy ass lib teachers with the trans crap, CRT freaks, gender identification, and now mental health screening. What in the hell happened to just let a kid be a kid without getting that stuff shoved down their throats. F’nig sad
 
Also - domestic violence in the form of misdemeanor assault will grounds for denying gun ownership - pretty sure that was in there too

I don't know much about this kind of law -- but I DO know that a misdemeanor assault charge can be pretty minor --- in fact I THINK it can just be angry words without any physical contact / violence


Can someone with a better legal background check me on that?

Misdemeanor assault?

What types of actions fall under that category?
 
  • Like
Reactions: trueblujr2
Actually it does. There are 3 separate lists. Coco Cola is on the third list in red. You have to keep scrolling down.
Thanks for correcting. I did not see Carhartt on the list. My sister in law works for Carhartt in Hanson Kentucky. They made them get the China virus vaccine or get fired. In addition, they were educated about not using “He / She” in company e-mails. The CEO is a big liberal living in Michigan. I will never buy another Carhartt product.
 
You can add Cox Communications to the list if they are not on it.
Wow that's damn near every corporation in the world
True, however the companies that I identified have made a point to advertise or grilled their employees on being woke. Several like Coke/Home Depot/Goodyear mandated their supervisors participate in knowing signs of white privilege.
I mentioned Carhartt in another post. Even though they have a factory in Hanson Kentucky, their CEO MADE their employees get the jab or be fired. This was back in November. Therefore no more Carhartt purchases.
 
I appreciate a fair response to the question. The morality of all of this is debatable in my view. People have different views of when life is actually created, and I respect everyone's views on that issue, even though I may disagree with some of them. The biggest problem with the debate about abortion is that there are three interests to protect: mom, dad and child. So, someone has to decide who's interest is most important and gets to decide what to do. I know there are people that think mom should decide, people that think dad should decide, and people that think since the kid can't decide its interest should prevail. All of those are reasonable positions, but unfortunately, they can't all prevail. Fair debate on the issue without name calling is appreciated.

Keep in mind though that yesterday's Supreme Court decision did not ban abortion, it just said it is no longer a constitutionally protected right. That was my original post about what I was concerned of is that the Court took away a right that it previously acknowledged. I don't mind someone disagreeing with whether it should be a right, but I get concerned when a political court in an extremely divided country starts taking away previously acknowledged rights. My concern is "what is next". And both sides should be concerned. Everyone looks at this as Rs v. Ds or conservatives v. liberals. It is not. We all have to live together in the same communities. We have to find common ground or we will collapse. Anyone that says "I am right, and if you don't get that then you are stupid" is destined to eventually fail, because the power in our country goes back and forth between parties.
Most knowledgeable jurists knew that there was never a right to an abortion in the constitution. That said, the high court has “taken” rights it once acknowledged. It once acknowledged the right to segregate black children from white children. The court later acknowledged that right did not exist. It once acknowledged the right to own a person as property. It now does not. When a recognized right means another person loses life and liberty, it makes sense that we revisit the previously recognized right.

The solicitor general and the parties to this case in arguments all said Roe must be reviewed. No one seemed to want just the Mississippi law to be reviewed. While I respect the opinion Robert’s offered, I think it would have led to more litigation. This was a sound decision.

The Roe Court may have thought it was solving a problem, but it actually deepened the divide in this country by lying to women who want to abort their children. I just wonder how outraged people would be had the Dobbs decision upheld a lesser Roe by limiting its holding to finding the Mississippi law constitutional. I think the political result would have been the same.
 
With the current news cycle it would be a good time for someone to tie up some loose ends.

RuhRoh, better check those video monitor cameras.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT