POLITICAL THREAD

[MegaBlue05]

Conservatives = Don't kill babies, kill criminals.

Liberals = Don't kill criminals, kill babies.

Questions?

Megablue05 =

 

[Big_Blue79]

Sure it isn't, outside politics plays no role in how the SCOTUS rules, whatever.

Idealistically you're right, and that's the way it's supposed to work, realistically you're wrong.

I'll be brief because I have a feeling this falls on deaf ears anyway, but 1) it takes 4 votes to grant certiorari (basically, agree to hear) a case at SCOTUS, after which there is briefing and oral argument, 2) once SCOTUS hears a case (realistically, once they receive all the briefs since oral argument is a tiny part of the process) the clerks and justices spend a substantial amount of time researching, discussing, and preparing an opinion, 3) Brexit happened last week, and 4) seriously, Brexit? So at least 4 justices months ago decided to hear this case, they spent time hearing arguments and doing legal research and polishing drafts and changing words to get enough other justices to sign on to the controlling opinion (dissents and concurrences get less revision because they don't need a majority of justices, obv), and then somehow Brexit last week played a role in how SCOTUS ruled (which was your addition to this) and influenced the timing of releasing the opinion (my original critique)?

FFS, if you're going so far down the "I'll believe anything" hole, you can do better than a non-binding referendum in another country about an unrelated issue whose supporters have some (but not overwhelming) overlap with domestic constituency that supports a ruling on a particular aspect of abortion laws in the US. Some guy made a 45 minute or so Youtube video about how The Shining was Kubrick's apology for helping fake the moon landing - that's how you do it right. Let's apply the lesson.

A quick Google search turned up two articles predicting a June release date for the decision (ignore that the prediction was made because that's how the process works and does every session). The NYT's piece even says late June, which I would hazard June 27th is. That means that on March 2, 2016, the NYT's knew that the NWO plotters on SCOTUS ("liberals" to us common folk) would need a pro-NWO moment to counteract Brexit. That means the NYT (mouthpiece of the NWO) knew about Brexit in advance, which just confirms that Brexit was a plant. Why? To rile up people against the leavers and, by proxy, rile up people against Trump. Remember he's on the leavers side. That's because the NWO wants Hillary (who is, in fact, NWO herself) to continue the plot for one world, open borders, abortion on demand. Because it's hard to stay on top when all those poors are demanding things like food. Keep a steady supply breeding, but not too many. Ergo, the SCOTUS ruling on abortion is nothing but an NWO plot to elect one of their own (many would say again). Confirmed.

 

[qwesley]

I'll be brief

false

 

[qwesley]

Megablue05 =

Go Blue Team!

 

[MegaBlue05]

Go Blue Team!

You like 'em Cayuts too? Hayel yeah!!!

 

[Bill Derington]

Bb79, I'm not going down any rabbit hole, nor did I say the case just got thrown together over the weekend.
However, I do think election year politics play a huge role in the timing of these decisions.

More to what I was speaking of was how the media portrays it. Like it is some huge groundbreaking decision. It's not, as far as the grand scheme of things, and they know it.
It's simply something to draw the attention of possible voters away from actual issues.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Not all of us. That tree can come down for all I care. Same with stuffing someone's dog into a gas oven. Death row? Kill'em all.

Yes, not all; which is why I made sure to use the word generally. Your position on favoring abortion is in line with the rest of your views. Plus, the macro social impact of abortion is a valid argument; and is one I agree with. Me personally, I just cant ignore the fact an unborn child is being killed.

Bb79, I'm not going down any rabbit hole, nor did I say the case just got thrown together over the weekend.
However, I do think election year politics play a huge role in the timing of these decisions.

More to what I was speaking of was how the media portrays it. Like it is some huge groundbreaking decision. It's not, as far as the grand scheme of things, and they know it.
It's simply something to draw the attention of possible voters away from actual issues.

I dont agree with everything in your last few posts regarding SCOTUS, but I do agree with these parts:

This SCOTUS is by far the most public opinion sensitive that I can recall.

The MSM definitely promotes the decisions they want, which is usually in line with liberal talking points.

 

[WettCat]

 

[-LEK-]

No different than the dem leaders saying that Vets are potential terrorist.

While I doubt any person said that, no way it was an entire group of leaders. Please link to make that claim. No reasonable person believes that.

Saying that would be political suicide.

 

[-LEK-]

I'll never understand how any monster could justify abortion outside of rape. I think a lot of its supporters don't even know what the process is like. Look at the pro choice crowd actually watching an abortion being done and then changing their mind.

View embedded media

Here's what simply amazes me about the left and how they can stockpile all of these voting blocks despite total conflicting ideologies and interests.

Dems get the black vote despite their history of slavery, KKK, Jim Crow laws, destroying the black community in every city they control and despite being pro abortion, which was designed to exterminate blacks and other minorities and aborts more blacks than any other race.

They also get the black vote despite wanting open borders and illegal immigration, which takes away even more jobs from the black community in a time where black youth unemployment is through the roof.

But all Dems have to do is pander and it gets ignored.

Then take a look at their desire to bring in millions of Muslims all while claiming to be for feminists, women's rights and the LGBT communities. That's right. Somehow in the Dem universe you can be for civil rights of gays and women all while you bring in a group who oppresses them and even kills them and then wants to make sure you don't have any way to protect yourself from this group.

We also have the college kids idiots who think Dems care about the youth while wanting to bring in people who will make sure they don't have a job when they get out of college.

Literally none of this is true. None.

It's odd how people believe if they say something enough it becomes true regardless of all facts.

 

[Big_Blue79]

false

Haha, yeah got a bit long.

However, I do think election year politics play a huge role in the timing of these decisions.

So June 27, but not June 20 or July 14? Who cares? Why wouldn't they wait for a big Hillary scandal or a Trump surge in the polls then?

This SCOTUS is by far the most public opinion sensitive that I can recall.

How could you possibly know or measure this? Consider a famous SCOTUS case from 62 years ago - Brown v. Board. The decision came down in 1954, but the case was originally argued in spring 1953 (SCOTUS terms are roughly October to June/July, which is why a case argued in April can, and does, come down in late June, btw). Why? The 1953 majority (which had enough votes to win) thought that having a unanimous ruling was crucial to the public response to the decision. In essence, a dissent would provide fodder for pro-segregationists. So the case was reargued in fall 1953 and issued in May 1954, all due to concern over public opinion. In 1954.

 

[Willy4UK]

Yes, not all; which is why I made sure to use the word generally. Your position on favoring abortion is in line with the rest of your views. Plus, the macro social impact of abortion is a valid argument; and is one I agree with. Me personally, I just cant ignore the fact an unborn child is being killed..

It sucks that we have to deal with it. That's why i say I don't like it.

But abortion solves a lot of economic problems for tax payers and the medical health of women.

There is no evidence. Absolutely zilch that any abstinence-only or purity ring bullshit stops pregnancies. Nor does any religious program that guilt shames the woman. Absolutely horrendous situation. What has shown to work is free condoms. It's the only research that has been proven to cut unwanted pregnancies. Colorado just had a $5 million dollar grant that paid for preventives and saved the state $42 million dollars. That program was not renewed. That's f***** insane. Good thing they got weed money to help with that. I hate for the gov't to sponsor that, but shit, if it meant saving money on a grand scale, it would be a better savings to tax payers paying welfare, than the U.S has ever seen.

As a tax payer, I refuse to let my dollars go to child welfare that could have prevented.

let these unwanted babies out of the womb, and we'd be broke as a country. Don't want to abort, but don't want the gov't to pay for them. That's a true dilemma. Pro-lifers have no plan, no anything. Just lett'em out of the womb and we'll worry about it later. That's stupid.

 

[Willy4UK]

I even would like a sterilization program like Bill Cosby on here has said.

If you can't afford a baby, sorry, you're getting sterilized until you can afford one. Once you can financially take care of a baby, you are de-sterilized.

 

[ymmot31]

false

I didn't make it through the first paragraph and I was going to post the same thing.

 

[Bill Derington]

Big blue, so you don't think politics plays any part of these decisions? I wish you were right.

 

[warrior-cat]

While I doubt any person said that, no way it was an entire group of leaders. Please link to make that claim. No reasonable person believes that.

Saying that would be political suicide.

I linked it a couple of weeks ago. Can't right now on my pad but will later when on my desk top.

 

[ymmot31]

Operation Vigilant Eagle is an American law-enforcement effort headed by the FBI aimed at identifying and preventing violence from white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups".[1] The operation was first mentioned in the Wall Street Journal in April 2009.[2]

Operation Vigilant Eagle exists as part of a larger national security effort to target individuals associated with "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" extremist groups. Example include members of (Tea Party movements), citizen militia (Occupy movements),[1] and other anti-government groups. In certain cases targets have been labeled as mentally ill with "oppositional-defiance disorder", and more cases show that veterans are being targeted since the beginning of Operation Vigilant Eagle[3] and the cause could be as simple as posting controversial song lyrics and political views on Facebook.[3]

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

So apparently it was leaked to Poland that Germany wants the EU member states to dissolve/submit their armies and borders to create a "superstate"..........yeah, that will work out well.

 

[qwesley]

Bob McDonnell was in jail and had to the the SCOTUS to get his ginned up conviction thrown out.

HRC is the odds on favorite to be the next POTUS.

And people wonder where the anger comes from.

 

[warrior-cat]

Arm yourselves because there is no one else who will save you. Hillary will be the next president and she is bringing hell with her. The end of the american way is near. The fight is coming and I welcome it. No way should we stand silent and allow this happen.

 

[domino79]

I wish Hillary were aborted.

 

[KingOfBBN]

So apparently it was leaked to Poland that Germany wants the EU member states to dissolve/submit their armies and borders to create a "superstate"..........yeah, that will work out well.

How has Merkel not been assassinated yet?

In all seriousness, dark times are coming for this country. Obama kick started it and Hillary will finish it off.

I hope for secession one day so we can split the county and get away from the leftist who dominate the coasts. .

 

[ram1955]

It sucks that we have to deal with it. That's why i say I don't like it.

But abortion solves a lot of economic problems for tax payers and the medical health of women.

There is no evidence. Absolutely zilch that any abstinence-only or purity ring bullshit stops pregnancies. Nor does any religious program that guilt shames the woman. Absolutely horrendous situation. What has shown to work is free condoms. It's the only research that has been proven to cut unwanted pregnancies. Colorado just had a $5 million dollar grant that paid for preventives and saved the state $42 million dollars. That program was not renewed. That's f***** insane. Good thing they got weed money to help with that. I hate for the gov't to sponsor that, but shit, if it meant saving money on a grand scale, it would be a better savings to tax payers paying welfare, than the U.S has ever seen.

As a tax payer, I refuse to let my dollars go to child welfare that could have prevented.

let these unwanted babies out of the womb, and we'd be broke as a country. Don't want to abort, but don't want the gov't to pay for them. That's a true dilemma. Pro-lifers have no plan, no anything. Just lett'em out of the womb and we'll worry about it later. That's stupid.

Uh....I guarantee abstinence would stop pregnancies. I agree that "guilting" people is not an effective way to change behavior. Unfortunately, that's the approach many Christian people take. Where I have a problem with the whole thing is that unwanted pregnancy can be avoided and generally the only reason it's not is simple irresponsibility. Yet it's not big deal to just kill the baby since we chose to go ahead and have sex in stead of waiting fifteen minutes to run to Walmart and pick up a box of rubbers. As for people having babies and not being able to take care of them....When welfare mom has #2 child she can't afford, give her a choice: continue welfare benefits IF you agree to have your tubes tied. If not, no more Uncle Sam $ for you.

 

[Willy4UK]

Uh....I guarantee abstinence would stop pregnancies. I agree that "guilting" people is not an effective way to change behavior. Unfortunately, that's the approach many Christian people take. Where I have a problem with the whole thing is that unwanted pregnancy can be avoided and generally the only reason it's not is simple irresponsibility. Yet it's not big deal to just kill the baby since we chose to go ahead and have sex in stead of waiting fifteen minutes to run to Walmart and pick up a box of rubbers. As for people having babies and not being able to take care of them....When welfare mom has #2 child she can't afford, give her a choice: continue welfare benefits IF you agree to have your tubes tied. If not, no more Uncle Sam $ for you.

But it hasn't. That's the problem. No one is is abstaining. Those programs are complete failures.

I think putting a governor on a woman's vagina is the solution. That way, when she can afford them, they release the governor off of it and wah lah.

 

[ram1955]

But it hasn't. That's the problem. No one is is abstaining. Those programs are complete failures.

I think putting a governor on a woman's vagina is the solution. That way, when she can afford them, they release the governor off of it and wah lah.

I agree: Abstinence programs do not stop pregnancies. If a parent is counting on their kids abstaining, they'd better start teaching them the ramifications and implications of sex outside of marriage at a very early age....and not in a guilt producing but a factual manner.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Colorado just had a $5 million dollar grant that paid for preventives and saved the state $42 million dollars. That program was not renewed. That's f***** insane. Good thing they got weed money to help with that. I hate for the gov't to sponsor that, but shit, if it meant saving money on a grand scale, it would be a better savings to tax payers paying welfare, than the U.S has ever seen.

Very effective program, real shame they cut it.

Big blue, so you don't think politics plays any part of these decisions? I wish you were right.

This is why I have long posts - because people take a position, twist it to fit their straw man, and then argue against it. Do politics play any part? Sure, and I've never said otherwise. Did SCOTUS release an opinion (at the time it should be expected to release it, no less) about Texas abortion regulations in response to Brexit? No. Just... no.

My point is Anyone who would say vets are potential terrorists is a moron and not indicative of any political party.

I do believe that some is stupid enough to say that though. Sad.

IIRC, it was a report (or program or whatever) saying that veterans were at risk for turning to anti-government groups like militias and the like.

But it hasn't. That's the problem. No one is is abstaining. Those programs are complete failures.

I think putting a governor on a woman's vagina is the solution. That way, when she can afford them, they release the governor off of it and wah lah.

Agreed. And I pictured Jessie "The Body" Ventura on a woman's vagina. You know Arnold would be up for it, too.

 

[Willy4UK]

 

[Willy4UK]

I agree: Abstinence programs do not stop pregnancies. If a parent is counting on their kids abstaining, they'd better start teaching them the ramifications and implications of sex outside of marriage at a very early age....and not in a guilt producing but a factual manner.

Absolutely

 

[bigblueinsanity]

How could you possibly know or measure this? Consider a famous SCOTUS case from 62 years ago - Brown v. Board. The decision came down in 1954, but the case was originally argued in spring 1953 (SCOTUS terms are roughly October to June/July, which is why a case argued in April can, and does, come down in late June, btw). Why? The 1953 majority (which had enough votes to win) thought that having a unanimous ruling was crucial to the public response to the decision. In essence, a dissent would provide fodder for pro-segregationists. So the case was reargued in fall 1953 and issued in May 1954, all due to concern over public opinion. In 1954.

Its impossible to quantify that. So I thought it was clear it was my jmo. Guess not.

I have no idea about 1953. I wasnt around.

Big blue, so you don't think politics plays any part of these decisions? I wish you were right.

I think public opinion does. Its not supposed to. But I think it does. IMO, this version of the court is the most sensitive to it in my lifetime.

Operation Vigilant Eagle is an American law-enforcement effort headed by the FBI aimed at identifying and preventing violence from white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups".[1] The operation was first mentioned in the Wall Street Journal in April 2009.[2]

Operation Vigilant Eagle exists as part of a larger national security effort to target individuals associated with "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" extremist groups. Example include members of (Tea Party movements), citizen militia (Occupy movements),[1] and other anti-government groups. In certain cases targets have been labeled as mentally ill with "oppositional-defiance disorder", and more cases show that veterans are being targeted since the beginning of Operation Vigilant Eagle[3] and the cause could be as simple as posting controversial song lyrics and political views on Facebook.[3]

2 things.

1) It would be nice if the FBI would reallocate these resources to focus on actual threats. I dont advocate any deprivation of civil rights. But, IF YOU MUST why not focus on actual threats. Oh, you know, like guys speaking arabic and trying to purchase ammo and body armor.

2) Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with suppression of criticism. Id bet my left testicle that any of these people whos said anything negative about Obama, or dems in general, have been audited at a much higher rate than an average person.

 

[ymmot31]

I agree: Abstinence programs do not stop pregnancies. If a parent is counting on their kids abstaining, they'd better start teaching them the ramifications and implications of sex outside of marriage at a very early age....and not in a guilt producing but a factual manner.

My disagreement with this statement is your insertion of "sex outside of marriage". Doesn't matter to me if two people are married or not, if they cannot afford to have a child and bear the burden of the expense that entails, they should not have a child.

Abortion is the ugliest thing we discuss, politically,socially, morally. No doubt it is a hair trigger issue. How important is it though? I mean, to the continuation of this country and its ideals, how important is it? There are other assaults on our freedoms that have far more ranging effects than abortion. Abortion is a diversion to take your mind off what is actually happening here. Listen to Willy. In his own way he's telling you what is of ultimate importance.

 

[ymmot31]

I agree: Abstinence programs do not stop pregnancies. If a parent is counting on their kids abstaining, they'd better start teaching them the ramifications and implications of sex outside of marriage at a very early age....and not in a guilt producing but a factual manner.

You are dead wrong. Abstinence programs absolutely stop pregnancies. Getting humans to abstain is the problem.

 

[Bill Derington]

Bb79, I'm not twisting anything, I do think decisions are made to misdirect public opinion during election years.
I do think the Brexit decision may have played a role in this decision by the court.
In order for Trump to win he needs a mixture of Dems and Reps, Brexit plays right into that. In order for Hillary to win she just needs things to stay as they are, and that's off truly important topics. Abortion, guns, transgender plays into that.

So essentially she needs left vs right with social issues at the forefront.

i probably should've worded my initial post differently, I understand this was scheduled for months, but I do have doubts the ruling would've been the same before Thursday, but I don't trust those in power any longer.

 

[Mashburned]

Who gets more abortions - College grads or nah?

 

[ymmot31]

Who gets more abortions - College grads or nah?

Jocks get more abortions than nerds, hope that helps you on your quest.

 

[jamo0001]

Agreed. And I pictured Jessie "The Body" Ventura on a woman's vagina. You know Arnold would be up for it, too.

Is Bill eligible for another term in Little Rock?

 

[From-the-stands]

FBI bearing down on HRC:

---based “on all the available evidence, including what is publicly known and what is known in the law enforcement community, there is sufficient, credible evidence needed to meet the predicate to begin a grand jury – sufficient evidence for probable cause to believe various crimes have been committed.”


http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/fbi-revolt-of-watergate-proportions-if-hillary-skates/

 

[bigblueinsanity]

FBI bearing down on HRC:

---based “on all the available evidence, including what is publicly known and what is known in the law enforcement community, there is sufficient, credible evidence needed to meet the predicate to begin a grand jury – sufficient evidence for probable cause to believe various crimes have been committed.”


http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/fbi-revolt-of-watergate-proportions-if-hillary-skates/

I'd love it, but will never happen.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Is Bill eligible for another term in Little Rock?

How? How did I miss the most obvious answer? Totally forgot he was a governor.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Bb79, I'm not twisting anything, I do think decisions are made to misdirect public opinion during election years.
I do think the Brexit decision may have played a role in this decision by the court.
In order for Trump to win he needs a mixture of Dems and Reps, Brexit plays right into that. In order for Hillary to win she just needs things to stay as they are, and that's off truly important topics. Abortion, guns, transgender plays into that.

So essentially she needs left vs right with social issues at the forefront.

i probably should've worded my initial post differently, I understand this was scheduled for months, but I do have doubts the ruling would've been the same before Thursday, but I don't trust those in power any longer.

I'm going to respectfully tap out because I just cannot fathom how someone could believe that. Really, I don't mean that disrespectfully or anything, it just doesn't make sense to me. I wish you good fortune in the wars to come.

 

[From-the-stands]

The Paddocks leading candidate Gary Johnson spelling out "common sense" ideas as an alternative to Trump and HRC in the wackiest election since before any of us were born.

>>>In his speech, Johnson emphasized lowering taxes, embracing immigration, supporting marriage equality, focusing on free markets and ending the war on drugs. He also called for the legalization of marijuana and limits on military action<<<

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...trying-win-over-clintontrump-haters/86419488/