Maxine Waters: “The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them”.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Things that reduce abortions: sex education, free contraceptives, paid maternity leave, affordable childcare, free pre-K, livable wages, affordable housing, and universal healthcare.

Things that don’t reduce abortions: bans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if bans don’t reduce abortions, why are you going absolutely berserk about the prospect of bans in some states?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

It’s funny all the conservative news from Ted fighting with Elmo to Trump paying for attorneys or
“How the court overruled Roe in a case where the petition for certiorari didn’t urge that position,” then “They resolve the EPA’s authority over climate change in a case involving a regulation that had never gone into effect..

Nope none of these stories got a response

But the mention of Texas reinstating sodomy laws.. The resident Alpha males are attracted like moths to a flame with all sorts of homosexuals references and innuendo. Beating their chests and thinking their owning the libs

It fun to watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Always projecting

Who could have imagined that Philip Gunn, MS Republican House Speaker who insists that 12-year-old girls raped by their fathers must bear their children, was personally involved in the coverup of pedophilia in the Southern Baptist Church.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Conservatives
Pro-life Pro-Death Sentence….Fractured Christian Theology
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Conservatives
Pro-life Pro-Death Sentence….Fractured Christian Theology
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so you’re saying an unborn baby who has had zero due process, , and a convicted murderer who has had multiple trials and appeals, are the same?

liberals say the convicted murderer has the right to live, not the unborn baby. You think that’s logical? i’ve often wondered how many bad acid trips it takes to believe that makes sense.

I’m opposed to the death penalty and to abortion, for the same reason, life is too precious.

But there’s logic to saying an unborn baby is more precious than a murderer. There’s little logic in saying the murderer has a greater right to life, than an unborn baby. You really have to hate the concept of responsibility and free will, to believe that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so you’re saying an unborn baby who has had zero due process, , and a convicted murderer who has had multiple trials and appeals, are the same?

liberals say the convicted murderer has the right to live, not the unborn baby. You think that’s logical? i’ve often wondered how many bad acid trips it takes to believe that makes sense.

I’m opposed to the death penalty and to abortion, for the same reason, life is too precious.

But there’s logic to saying an unborn baby is more precious than a murderer. There’s little logic in saying the murderer has a greater right to life, than an unborn baby. You really have to hate the concept of responsibility and free will, to believe that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Moving the goal posts again

I thought it was about how life is precious

Now it’s about due process

Jim what I posted is not my what I believe it’s just a contradiction in red states who hate abortion but embrace the death penalty wanting it both ways. I belive in the right to abortion and the death penalty

Iam not conflicted
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Moving the goal posts again

I thought it was about how life is precious

Now it’s about due process

Jim what I posted is not my what I believe it’s just a contradiction in red states who hate abortion but embrace the death penalty wanting it both ways. I belive in the right to abortion and the death penalty

Iam not conflicted
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you compared abortion and the death penalty. i didn’t move the goal
post even by an inch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Moving the goal posts again

I thought it was about how life is precious

Now it’s about due process

Jim what I posted is not my what I believe it’s just a contradiction in red states who hate abortion but embrace the death penalty wanting it both ways. I belive in the right to abortion and the death penalty

Iam not conflicted
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the constitution says that life cannot be denied without due process. abortion is an obvious violation. the death penalty is clearly in keeping with that.

the death penalty is explicitly constitutional. doesn’t mean it’s ethical, i believe it’s not ethical, but you cannot even argue that it’s unconstitutional.

with abortion (again) if you believe the baby is alive, then killing it without due process, is irrefutably unconstitutional.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the constitution says that life cannot be denied without due process. abortion is an obvious violation. the death penalty is clearly in keeping with that.

the death penalty is explicitly constitutional. doesn’t mean it’s ethical, i believe it’s not ethical, but you cannot even argue that it’s unconstitutional.

with abortion (again) if you believe the baby is alive, then killing it without due process, is irrefutably unconstitutional.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the constitution says that life cannot be denied without due process.

Those goal posts must be powered by V8s they move so fast

Where in the constitution is a fetus mentioned or considered an citizen
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Keep screaming without paying attention to the issue at the heart of the conflict.

"Do you believe, at any point in pregnancy, that there should be any limit on a woman's right to an abortion?" Wallace asked.

"I think the dialogue has gotten so caught up on when you draw the line that we've gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line," Buttigieg said.

"And I trust women to draw the line."

Wallace pointed to late term abortions and asked Buttigieg what his position was in back-and-forth.

"You would be okay with a woman well into the third trimester to obtain an abortion?" Wallace asked.

"These hypotheticals are set up to provoke a strong emotional reaction," Buttigieg said.

"These aren't hypotheticals — there are 6,000 women a year who get an abortion in the third trimester," Wallace said.

"That's right, representing less than one percent of cases a year," Buttigieg replied. The data from 2019 appears to support his claim, according to a Los Angeles Times report.

"So, let's put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it's that late in your pregnancy, that means almost by definition you've been expecting to carry it to term," he went on.

"We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen the name, women who have purchased the crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice."

"That decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made," he said.

But Jim knows better than any woman or doctor how this should be decided.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Keep screaming without paying attention to the issue at the heart of the conflict.

"Do you believe, at any point in pregnancy, that there should be any limit on a woman's right to an abortion?" Wallace asked.

"I think the dialogue has gotten so caught up on when you draw the line that we've gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line," Buttigieg said.

"And I trust women to draw the line."

Wallace pointed to late term abortions and asked Buttigieg what his position was in back-and-forth.

"You would be okay with a woman well into the third trimester to obtain an abortion?" Wallace asked.

"These hypotheticals are set up to provoke a strong emotional reaction," Buttigieg said.

"These aren't hypotheticals — there are 6,000 women a year who get an abortion in the third trimester," Wallace said.

"That's right, representing less than one percent of cases a year," Buttigieg replied. The data from 2019 appears to support his claim, according to a Los Angeles Times report.

"So, let's put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it's that late in your pregnancy, that means almost by definition you've been expecting to carry it to term," he went on.

"We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen the name, women who have purchased the crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice."

"That decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made," he said.

But Jim knows better than any woman or doctor how this should be decided.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m not screaming, i’m responding. the heart of the matter, the whole
matter,,is whether or not the unborn is a person. that’s all
it’s about.

I don’t truth people
to draw the line. that’s why we need laws, because some people
will draw that line to allow them
to do wicked things. Pete’s answer was a complete, total, cop out.

IF you believe the baby is a person (and you do not, which is fine), you wouldn’t trust women to draw the line where they see fit.

The left always frames this dishonestly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m not screaming, i’m responding. the heart of the matter, the whole
matter,,is whether or not the unborn is a person. that’s all
it’s about.

I don’t truth people
to draw the line. that’s why we need laws, because some people
will draw that line to allow them
to do wicked things. Pete’s answer was a complete, total, cop out.

IF you believe the baby is a person (and you do not, which is fine), you wouldn’t trust women to draw the line where they see fit.

The left always frames this dishonestly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the majority of women will argue the heart of the issue is they should have control of their own bodies and the decision is theirs. I agree with them, but I know you wil ramble on.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I think the majority of women will argue the heart of the issue is they should have control of their own bodies and the decision is theirs. I agree with them, but I know you wil ramble on.

they can argue that, but it’s a smokescreen. and i can prove it.

Are you ok with laws that prevent female teachers from getting involved with male students? i assume you’re ok with those laws, most people are.

in other words, we all agree women can do what they want with their bodies, as long as the choice doesn’t harm someone else. everyone agrees with that. i agree with that, so do you.

Therefore, this is t about women’s rights to make choices. all it’s about, is the status of the baby.

i dare you to make that wrong. you can’t.

ever single criminal law, limits choices people ( even women) can make.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

No you’re wrong
Just because your religion says life begins at conception (but won’t give the unborn last rites) doesn’t make a fetus be a life or have a soul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Jim can prove the majority of the women in this country are wrong, OMG someone call Fox we need to give him the audience that will truly appreciate his nonsense.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Jim can prove the majority of the women in this country are wrong, OMG someone call Fox we need to give him the audience that will truly appreciate his nonsense.

you don’t respond.

yes, i can prove the issue is not about women’s rights. There are tons of laws that restrict women’s rights

If women have bodily autonomy, by what right do we force them to take vaccines, not inject themselves with heroin, require them
to get up in the middle of the night and feed their hungry babies?

calling me an idiot, doesn’t recite my point. it cannot be refuted, i’ve used it a million times, there’s no logical response.

we all agree that women can do whatever they want as long as they don’t hurt someone else. Therefore this isn’t about women’s rights. All that matters. is the question of whether or not the baby constitutes “someone else.”

If it’s nonsense, why can’t you refute it with a rebuttal?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Reminder that Thomas Jefferson who helped write the Declaration of Independence also said we should rewrite the constitution every 20 years so that dead people wouldn’t rule over modern society.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

To paraphrase what Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote”
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood apart from the purpose, the setting, and the objectives of the draftsmen. At the time of the Bill of Rights, people were apprehensive about the new national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. It guarantees, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State. Today, of course, the State militia serves a different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has assumed the role of the militia of 200 years ago. Americans have a right to defend their homes, and nothing should undermine this right; nor does anyone question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting anymore than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing. Neither does anyone question the right of citizens to keep and own an automobile. Yet there is no strong interest by the citizenry in questioning the power of the State to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. It is even more desirable for the State to have reasonable regulations for the ownership and use of a firearm in an effort to stop mindless homicidal carnage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

infringe

verb [ I/T ]

US /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/

to act in a way that is against a law or that limits someone’s rights or freedom:
[ T ] Copying videos infringes copyright law.
[ I always + adv/prep ] The senator is opposed to any laws that infringe on a citizen’s right to free speech.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

infringe

verb [ I/T ]

US /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/

to act in a way that is against a law or that limits someone’s rights or freedom:
[ T ] Copying videos infringes copyright law.
[ I always + adv/prep ] The senator is opposed to any laws that infringe on a citizen’s right to free speech.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s that simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it’s that simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You would think
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

infringe

verb [ I/T ]

US /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/

to act in a way that is against a law or that limits someone’s rights or freedom:
[ T ] Copying videos infringes copyright law.
[ I always + adv/prep ] The senator is opposed to any laws that infringe on a citizen’s right to free speech.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More twisted logic so you can own multiple guns so your right has not be infringed

SCJ overturns a100 year old law that suddenly interpreted 2022 as an infringement .. I guess no one cared about the constitution until the current bench. Lol

The right to bear arms generally refers to a person's right to possess weapons.

No mention of bringing them where ever you like . hidden or open but let’s just add that part in 2022. So much for originality view


But move the goal post again claiming not being able to carrying a concealed Is an infringement

What’s next on the 2a infringement menu..

Carrying on planes , court rooms schools going after private companies or business who don’t allow firearms in or on their grounds

So glad the 4th of July shooter rights weren’t infringed

Odd 2a supporters seem to have no concern of the rights of those killed And their Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Or domestic Tranquility
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The right to bear arms generally refers to a person's right to possess weapons.

No mention of bringing them where ever you like . hidden or open but let’s just add that part in 2022. So much for originality view

So you can only shoot them in your house???? And my logic is twisted




Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

So you can only shoot them in your house???? And my logic is twisted




Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok that photo was hysterical!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional

Today at the NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, oversized letters on the facade no longer refer to “marksmanship” and “safety.” Instead, the Second Amendment is emblazoned on a wall of the building’s lobby. Visitors might not notice that the text is incomplete. It reads:

“.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The first half—the part about the well regulated militia—has been edited out.

From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.


As the revisionist perspective took hold, government agencies also began to shift. In 1981, Republicans took control of the U.S. Senate for the first time in 24 years. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch became chair of a key Judiciary Committee panel, where he commissioned a study on “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” In a breathless tone it announced, “What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.”

As the revisionist perspective took hold, government agencies also began to shift. In 1981, Republicans took control of the U.S. Senate for the first time in 24 years. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch became chair of a key Judiciary Committee panel, where he commissioned a study on “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” In a breathless tone it announced, “What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.”

But conservatives love their revisionist views of America
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun



But conservatives love their revisionist views of America



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

the right of the id

Yea you guys are funny

I live in mass have an LTC and not against gun ownership .

Just against nonsense like you posted people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringe

seems the far right 2a crowd has now decided , that background checks application paper work waiting periods and questions by law enforcement suddenly these what I call normal process and inconvenient for some! Are now considered as an infringement on their right to carry a gun ..

Yep inconvenience now equal infringement



They want to walk in a gun shop paying for it and walking out .. then go to the mall with their new toy on full display

to them that’s what the 2nd amendment means
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

We are in the midst of a cultural war - it’s not coming - it’s here.

It’s not going to look like men in blue or gray lined up on border states.

It’s going to look like…well, what’s going on.

Ultimately demographics will determine a winner - question is Can we last that long?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

We are in the midst of a cultural war - it’s not coming - it’s here.

It’s not going to look like men in blue or gray lined up on border states.

It’s going to look like…well, what’s going on.

Ultimately demographics will determine a winner - question is Can we last that long?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

demographics…and how are democrats polling with hispanics right now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Price of gas dropped 25 cents here today
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device