RIOT, ahem, Protest Season 2022 in 3, 2, xx

[detbuch]

"Doctors often consider"--Wow, that's something you can hang your hat on.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Doctors often consider"--Wow, that's something you can hang your hat on.

I know crazy right. Actually considering they are doctors for a living …. Let me guess their in on it to make money
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I know crazy right. Actually considering they are doctors for a living …. Let me guess their in on it to make money
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"often consider" is not a committed, definitive, statement. It implies that they often don't consider. Not a scientifically conclusive disposition. Nor are most doctors research biologists or embryologists. Doctors practice medicine on the basis of scientific theories, they are not who create the theories. They are trained how to treat natal and pre-natal malfunctions and recommend how to keep those functions healthy. They are not the ones to decide what a human being is. They are the ones who medically treat humans.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

But who says viability = being a human being?

Normal people !

But you offered ZERO evidence that he was wrong.

In America Jim not sure if this is new to you but it’s not my responsibility to prove Tucker wrong it’s Tuckers responsibility to prove he’s right . Not just make baseless accusations.. while providing no evidence. And ism sure you believe him so what’s to argue ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is a fetus viable in the womb? Of course it is. Do doctors treat humans. Yes. Do doctors treat mammals other than humans? No. Do doctors decide what a human being is? No. Do doctors treat fetuses? Yes. Who scientifically decide what or who is human? Biologists, embryologists. Do they consider the fetus to be a human being? Yes.

Is a human being viable on Saturn. No. Does that mean that human beings who travel to other planets on which they are not viable are not human beings there? No. They are still human beings there even though they are not viable without technological help. Fetuses are viable in their mother's womb. Their mother is a human being. They are viable inside of her with the help she was designed to assist them. They are viable when they leave their mother's body and are born. They are viable, as nature designed, from conception to birth and beyond. Throughout the whole process, during all the different stages with their different conditions, they are viable, and they are human beings with a unique genetic human code which they have and keep from conception to death. They belong to the species homo sapiens. They do not ever, from conception till death, belong to any other species. They are human. They are beings. They are human beings.

[Pete F.]

Since you say we should leave abortion rights up to states. I say, why stop there? Why not leave it up to counties, cities, neighborhoods, or—and this would really be fun—individual people?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Since you say we should leave abortion rights up to states. I say, why stop there? Why not leave it up to counties, cities, neighborhoods, or—and this would really be fun—individual people?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If an individual human can get pregnant without the aid or contact with any other humans--that would be fun.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Since you say we should leave abortion rights up to states. I say, why stop there? Why not leave it up to counties, cities, neighborhoods, or—and this would really be fun—individual people?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because I'm going by that pesky old document called the constitution.

The constitution lists things that are the jurisdiction of the federal government, and it also says that things not on that list, are up to states to decide.

I didn't just say "leave it up to the states", and make that up out of this air.

Using your "logic", why not leave the choice to rape children, up to individual people?

Not only can you not win this, you can't avoid humiliating yourself.

Many states will decide to leave this choice up to the mom. Other states, where most citizens don't like abortion, will restrict it.

This is a concept you're clearly struggling with and puzzled by, it's called "democracy". In democratic republic, sometimes you get what you want, sometimes others get what they want.

You seem to be under the impression that "democracy" means "always whatever the left wants".

I live in CT, I'm used to not getting what I want and accepting it. CT will not only continue to offer abortion, they'll probably make a tourist industry around it. And I accept that, because I realize that I happen to live in a place where the vast majority of voters are far left. I don't like it, but it's not unfair.

You can't grasp that.

[Pete F.]

Just announced, Mitch McConnell says protesters of the Supreme Court Justices are not authorized under the 1st Amendment. He also says if Republicans take charge, they will outlaw all abortions in the US, period. Welcome to Sharia Law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just announced, Mitch McConnell says protesters of the Supreme Court Justices are not authorized under the 1st Amendment. He also says if Republicans take charge, they will outlaw all abortions in the US, period. Welcome to Sharia Law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, it would be the opposite of Sharia Law. It would be law created by the representatives of the people, not created by Mohammad, the representative of God.

And if McConnell meant the Federal House of Representatives could outlaw all abortions, I don't think the SCOTUS would agree with him.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, it would be the opposite of Sharia Law. It would be law created by the representatives of the people, not created by Mohammad, the representative of God.

It's proclaimed by the Catholic Justices, as opposed to the Sunni Iman chosen by the people

And if McConnell meant the Federal House of Representatives could outlaw all abortions, I don't think the SCOTUS would agree with him.

Many people believed the People now on the court when they said Roe was settled law...... and I assume the Catholic Justices believe in the Immaculate Conception, so "If an individual human can get pregnant without the aid or contact with any other humans--that would be fun."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Many people believed the People now on the court when they said Roe was settled law...... and I assume the Catholic Justices believe in the Immaculate Conception, so "If an individual human can get pregnant without the aid or contact with any other humans--that would be fun."

show me where any of them
said they’d never overturn Roe, or any other precedent.

saying “it’s currently settled law and i respect that”, is nowhere near the same thing as saying “i would
never overturn a precedent.”

none of them ever tel you in advance how they’d rule on future hypothetical cases. That started with Ginsburg.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Actually, it would be the opposite of Sharia Law. It would be law created by the representatives of the people, not created by Mohammad, the representative of God.

It's proclaimed by the Catholic Justices, as opposed to the Sunni Iman chosen by the people

The Catholic Justices did not "proclaim" that the federal government can outlaw abortion. Their opinion is that the matter is left up to the states--which has nothing to do with Catholicism.

And Imams have more expansive duties than SCOTUS judges.
But, just as those judges don't have the power to legislate (which Progressive judges either don't understand or just don't care and do it anyway) Imams don't create laws. Nor do the people of Islam.
Their law has already been written. Whoever their "representatives" are, they can't create fundamental laws--just procedural laws like speed limits, etc.

Many people believed the People now on the court when they said Roe was settled law......

"The truth is that "settled law" is just a euphemism that jurists and legal scholars use to refer to Supreme Court precedent that is indeed binding - but only until a majority of the justices decide that it should be overruled." So a judge can say something is "settled law" in the way the terms is used to mean that it is binding. But it is necessary that any law can, and must, be overturned if it was badly, unconstitutionally decided, no matter how "settled" it has become.

and I assume the Catholic Justices believe in the Immaculate Conception, so "If an individual human can get pregnant without the aid or contact with any other humans--that would be fun."

I assume that Catholic Justices believe in only one immaculate conception. All other conceptions are run of the mill, regular, tedious, though often fraught with problems, biological conceptions.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I assume that Catholic Justices believe in only one immaculate conception. All other conceptions are run of the mill, regular, tedious, though often fraught with problems, biological conceptions.

and if facts matter, which i doubt, Gorsuch is Protestant. And Sotomayor is also catholic, but that’s ok.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Facts matter

Roe infuriated pro-life Americans and made pro-choice Americans complacent. Republican candidates could use the issue to rile up their base without risking an electoral backlash. But if Roe goes down, Americans who want to keep abortion legal will have to vote that way. And those Americans are a political majority.

Polls taken in the last six months paint a clear picture of the coming storm. Few Americans expected Roe to be overturned, and most didn’t want the Court to do it. The numbers vary, but the pattern is consistent: Between half and two-thirds of the public wants to keep Roe, and Roe supporters outnumber Roe opponents by about 2-to-1.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Facts matter

Roe infuriated pro-life Americans and made pro-choice Americans complacent. Republican candidates could use the issue to rile up their base without risking an electoral backlash. But if Roe goes down, Americans who want to keep abortion legal will have to vote that way. And those Americans are a political majority.

Polls taken in the last six months paint a clear picture of the coming storm. Few Americans expected Roe to be overturned, and most didn’t want the Court to do it. The numbers vary, but the pattern is consistent: Between half and two-thirds of the public wants to keep Roe, and Roe supporters outnumber Roe opponents by about 2-to-1.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then rest easy. You don't have to exert yourself with daily complaints, accusations, insinuations, diatribes, lies, and disinformation on the forum. Rest easy. Social justice will win and your children will live in a much better world. A lot of children won't have that chance, but eff them.

[Pete F.]

All you need to do is listen to the Harvard educated third ranking House Trumplican

“The Republican Party is the party of parents, babies, grandparents, families, and patriotic Americans.

Today’s Democrat Party is the party of Socialists, illegals, criminals, Communist Truth Ministers, & media stenographers.

This is why there will be a #RedTsunami in November.”

Hi: Parent, family guy, friend of babies, and patriotic American here.

And I want nothing to do with a Republican Party with a top elected official who writes something like this, which would have read better in the original Italian or German a century ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

All you need to do is listen to the Harvard educated third ranking House Trumplican

“The Republican Party is the party of parents, babies, grandparents, families, and patriotic Americans.

Today’s Democrat Party is the party of Socialists, illegals, criminals, Communist Truth Ministers, & media stenographers.

This is why there will be a #RedTsunami in November.”

Hi: Parent, family guy, friend of babies, and patriotic American here.

And I want nothing to do with a Republican Party with a top elected official who writes something like this, which would have read better in the original Italian or German a century ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It read very well in the original American English. Quite like how you and Democrat politicians describe the Republican party.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It read very well in the original American English. Quite like how you and Democrat politicians describe the Republican party.

Guessing leader in the party calling fellow Americans and people who live on their street Socialists, illegals, criminals, Communist Truth Ministers, & media stenographers. She left out groomer’s trans lovers and pedophiles .. seems to be a trend for Republicans basic name calling Seeing they have no policy’s to speak . McConnell wants a policy-free midterm campaign.

Imagine that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Guessing leader in the party calling fellow Americans and people who live on their street Socialists, illegals, criminals, Communist Truth Ministers, & media stenographers. She left out groomer’s trans lovers and pedophiles .. seems to be a trend for Republicans basic name calling Seeing they have no policy’s to speak . McConnell wants a policy-free midterm campaign.

Imagine that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

because the left NEVER speaks i’ll of those who disagree with them. Never.

The gop midterms will be about nothing but actual results. Crime, interest rates, gas prices, inflation, mess at the border, Russia on the move, unavailability of baby formula, record high drug overdoses, stock markets tumbling,

None of those things were this bad before Biden took over.

The commercials write themselves. Split screen with cheap gas on one side, $5 gas on the other.

The supreme court leak was a huge political gift. could very well be what saves the left, but not if 45% of Hispanics or more republican.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It read very well in the original American English. Quite like how you and Democrat politicians describe the Republican party.

Guess it didn’t take long for her rhetoric to result in bloodshed in a neighboring district. She threw fuel on the fire. I place all this violence at the feet of politicians that continue to appease and promote racism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Guess it didn’t take long for her rhetoric to result in bloodshed in a neighboring district. She threw fuel on the fire. I place all this violence at the feet of politicians that continue to appease and promote racism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see no reason why saying “The Republican Party is the party of parents, babies, grandparents, families, and patriotic Americans. Today’s Democrat Party is the party of Socialists, illegals, criminals, Communist Truth Ministers, & media stenographers. This is why there will be a #RedTsunami in November” (which is not even racist) should result in bloodshed. Unless there was something extremely wrong with the person who shed the blood.

Should there be bloodshed every time a Democrat politician says similarly negative things about the Republican Party? Should it be considered "racist" whenever Democrats do so?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Of course you do, shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

The gunman who killed at least 10 people in Buffalo is a self-described white supremacist who advocates for the Great Replacement Theory.
He left a manifesto. See if you can tell the difference between it and standard fare on the Tucker Carlson show.
Almost half of Republicans subscribe to the gunman's theory that whites are being systematically and deliberately replaced, a theory that was, until recently, something to be found only on white nationalist websites.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The gunman who killed at least 10 people in Buffalo is a self-described white supremacist who advocates for the Great Replacement Theory.
He left a manifesto. See if you can tell the difference between it and standard fare on the Tucker Carlson show.
Almost half of Republicans subscribe to the gunman's theory that whites are being systematically and deliberately replaced, a theory that was, until recently, something to be found only on white nationalist websites.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The gunman is bat$hit crazy. Crazy people have used the Constitution, the Bible, Das Kapital, Dave Chappel, the Koran, abortion rights, hatred of minorities, hatred of whites, hatred of women, hatred of men, Communism, socialism, social justice, hatred of Christianity, hatred of their mother, hatred of their father, hatred of themselves, etc., to do bat$hit crazy things. It's bat$hit crazy to say that all those things, or people like Tucker Carlson, are responsible for bat$hit crazy people doing bat$hit crazy things.

Sometimes, often, you seem to be bat$hit crazy.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The gunman is bat$hit crazy.

Coverage of mass shootings in this country almost always goes to the "lone wolf" trope, especially when the shooter is white. It's so important in this case to resist that framing, and be clear that the shooter is a white supremacist. And that his position is no longer fringe.

The clearest evidence that the strain white supremacy that was recently fringe is now mainstream is nearly 50% of Republicans agree with 'great replacement theory' which says white people are being deliberately and systemically replaced by minorities.

Tucker Carlson, Fox News in general, Brietbart, the MAGA crowd, the whole right-wing ecosystem that is essentially the mainstream GOP now spouts this stuff, which they know will spark violence.

So it's extremely important to not let the media or anyone run with a story of a lone wolf. He put out a manifesto. He drove for 3.5 hours. He had body armor. He was planned and deliberate in his white supremacist terror. Not mentally ill, or any of the excuses so often used.

And his case is not unique. From Kyle Rittenhouse to the horrific shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue to the awful Atlanta Spa mass shooting the right is growing more and more violent. And 'great replacement theory' is a key motivator of these shootings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Coverage of mass shootings in this country almost always goes to the "lone wolf" trope, especially when the shooter is white. It's so important in this case to resist that framing, and be clear that the shooter is a white supremacist. And that his position is no longer fringe.

The clearest evidence that the strain white supremacy that was recently fringe is now mainstream is nearly 50% of Republicans agree with 'great replacement theory' which says white people are being deliberately and systemically replaced by minorities.

Tucker Carlson, Fox News in general, Brietbart, the MAGA crowd, the whole right-wing ecosystem that is essentially the mainstream GOP now spouts this stuff, which they know will spark violence.

So it's extremely important to not let the media or anyone run with a story of a lone wolf. He put out a manifesto. He drove for 3.5 hours. He had body armor. He was planned and deliberate in his white supremacist terror. Not mentally ill, or any of the excuses so often used.

And his case is not unique. From Kyle Rittenhouse to the horrific shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue to the awful Atlanta Spa mass shooting the right is growing more and more violent. And 'great replacement theory' is a key motivator of these shootings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is the kind of crazy rhetoric that can lead to violence. Hopefully, you are fringe--though, you are more mainstream Progressive than the shooter is mainstream Republican.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is the kind of crazy rhetoric that can lead to violence. Hopefully, you are fringe--though, you are more mainstream Progressive than the shooter is mainstream Republican.

Remember when Trump celebrated a known war criminal? Remember when the whole right celebrated Rittenhouse? These are all steps leading up to an unapologetic embrace of killers like the one in Buffalo. Woulda been unthinkable not long ago, but now ... it's thinkable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

You can hear the killer's arguments coming from the mouths of plenty of Republican Senate candidates.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Over at white outrage HQ newsmaxs . They are all outraged this shooting has been labeled a hate crime

The excuses range from 2 whites were killed , or why isn’t black on black murder a hate crime, and Thinning the herd

And my favorite

Let's review;
Manifesto-check
Known to be a whacko-check
Illegally purchased gun-check
Too young to own gun-check
Didn't care about laws-check
Told people his plans-check
No one bothered to stop him-check

Seems to be a set up-check Mid term false flag operation


But but baby formula .

PS which is controls by 4 companies

But it’s some how a government issue ? Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Over at white outrage HQ newsmaxs . They are all outraged this shooting has been labeled a hate crime

The excuses range from 2 whites were killed , or why isn’t black on black murder a hate crime, and Thinning the herd

And my favorite

Let's review;
Manifesto-check
Known to be a whacko-check
Illegally purchased gun-check
Too young to own gun-check
Didn't care about laws-check
Told people his plans-check
No one bothered to stop him-check

Seems to be a set up-check Mid term false flag operation


But but baby formula .

PS which is controls by 4 companies

But it’s some how a government issue ? Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who, exactly, said thinning the herd?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device