It appears Roe Vs. Wade is about to be overturned.


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

It depends upon each person's individual narrative. 

For example, the other day a political cartoonist did a cartoon talking about all of the instances of left-wing violence over the last few years. People were screaming and otherwise losing control because they'd either never heard of any incidents of left-wing violence or were in denial that such incidents had happened. As far as they were concerned, only right-wing groups were engaging in violence. 

Leftists are almost always so wrapped up in their own sense of righteousness that they simply can’t comprehend that any violence their side is “immoral.” It’s all for the “greater good” to them. They are, of course, dead wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ironhold said:

It depends upon each person's individual narrative. 

For example, the other day a political cartoonist did a cartoon talking about all of the instances of left-wing violence over the last few years. People were screaming and otherwise losing control because they'd either never heard of any incidents of left-wing violence or were in denial that such incidents had happened. As far as they were concerned, only right-wing groups were engaging in violence. 

Well, of course.  People always believe what they want to believe.  There's never any such thing as "proof".  People only accept things that already fit into their narrative.

The ironic thing is that we're essentially supposed to think that way. I'm going to start a new thread about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2022 at 12:17 PM, LDSGator said:

So….do you feel the same way about the LGBTQ community? BLM supportersPeople with tattoos? Or is it just poor little Trumpers who are now the innocent victims? 

Are all Trumpers mean and nasty people? Of course not. But if you are known by the company you keep, then yes, it’s safe to say the Trump community deserves their reputation. At least partially. They made their own bed, for the most part.

The Trumpers bother me more than anything else because they made it easier for traditional conservatives to be painted as angry, unpleasant, and nasty. I know way too many conservatives who are wonderful people. 

I feel bad for the hardcore Trumpers who don’t scream in rage at you if you disagree with their man. Hopefully both of them know each other. 

I have personal acquaintances in what is called the LGBTQ+ community.  I know for a fact than many within that community disagree with others within that community about a great many things related to so called social norms.   Generally I do not like attaching any labels to any specific individuals.  And as with so many things there are exceptions.  For example I will describe myself as a Christian but in reality I would rather refer to myself as a disciple of Christ.

The only generality that I think of people with tattoos is that they are not comfortable in their own skin.  Or at least there was a time in their life that they were not comfortable in their own skin.  I try to live on the notion that what a person does sounds so loudly in my ears - I cannot hear a word they are saying.  

Before I go farther I would talk about a competition in artificial intelligence (that no longer takes place).  The competition was to create an intelligence that could defeat other programs at a little game of points based on outsmarting other programs.  The most points would be scored by getting the other programs to put for a friendly effort while your program took upon the role of attacking an enemy.  Second most points scored by being friendly with a friend - then so on.  One would never know what their competition would be; so the idea was to learn from the other programs to compete.  Someone came up with the idea to initially be neutral then to always respond with whatever the other program was doing.   One on one with other programs the best this little simple logic A.I. program could do was to tie their current opponent -- so it would never win an individual competition  but against a field of competitors its accumulated score was much higher that anyone else's.  It won the competition war.  

In some ways I think Trump is similar to this A.I. program.   I believe that Trump would put forth an idea and then however anyone treated him; he would responds in kind with one caveat - he would up (increase) his response.

If course, especially in politics, it does not matter what idea anyone has - someone will oppose it and no one agrees with everybody else.   I personally have discovered that one of the best ways to make enemies is to treat someone the same way they treat you.  In general people hate mirrors.  Politicians seem to hate anything that reflects what or who they really are. 

I do not like the personality of Trump and I do not think all his ideas are on point.  But I do not know of anyone that has pulled back the curtain on the wizards of Washington D.C. (as well as the media wizards) more than Trump.  I am now trying to decide if we (as citizens of the USA) are better off having discovered all the fake wizards or if we are just becoming more divided over what we expect of our favored wizards.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

 

Reason magazine had a report on those pro choice attacks. 

I see they are focusing on “Jane’s revenge “. I notice it doesn’t say a thing about the JaneSentUs folks. Which has its own website, and are the folks responsible for doxxing  the home address of the supreme court justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I see they are focusing on “Jane’s revenge “. I notice it doesn’t say a thing about the JaneSentUs folks. Which has its own website, and are the folks responsible for doxxing  the home address of the supreme court justice.

All of these groups are like the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers. Violent thugs who are loved by the extremes of their party and hated by all decent people. I can deal with college leftists and pearl clutching uber prudes. It’s the groups that advocate violence that repulse me. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

All of these groups are like the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers. Violent thugs who are loved by the extremes of their party and hated by all decent people. I can deal with college leftists and pearl clutching uber prudes. It’s the groups that advocate violence that repulse me. 

Like BLM, ANTIFA, Defund the Police,  and Maxine Waters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Like BLM, ANTIFA, Defund the Police,  and Maxine Waters?

BLM-partially. Started off with noble intentions though. 
 

ANTIFA-yes

 

Defund the Police-are they an organized group? 
 

Maxine Waters-no. Just a politician. If she’s guilty of violence than MTG is guilty of it as well with her half baked conspiracy garbage. Which yes, throwing around terms like “groomer” is just as destructive.  Again though, “collateral damage” just doesn’t exist to true believers. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

BLM-partially. Started off with noble intentions though. 

Have you read their initial organization intent?

Quote

Defund the Police-are they an organized group?  

I do not know how they could accomplish anything without being organized?????

Quote

Maxine Waters-no. Just a politician. If she’s guilty of violence than MTG is guilty of it as well with her half baked conspiracy garbage.

I do not know what MTG is - so I Googled it.  It says it is a card game - Magic: The Gathering. ????? 

 Maxine Waters is a politician that told her followers to get in the faces of conservatives (or any non supporters of her causes) and scram until they leave any public place.  It may be just me but this looks a lot like a direct contradiction to the first amendment and a catalyst for violence - which is contrary to their oath as a politician.

I do not think it is violence to gather or encourage gathering that encourage investigations into legal proceedings.  That is as long as violence is not the intent.  For example: if, during the Jan 6th gathering, there were officers of the government (FBI agents) among the gathering encouraging individuals to break the law.  I believe such is a messenger of violence and must be investigated in open (not secret) proceedings.  

I agree with Tray Gouty - that if any legal proceedings take place in the government that those accused have a right to counsel and representation at the proceedings and the right to cross examine any witness under oath or to challenge any charge against them and to call their own witnesses in any such public proceedings.  That to deny such justice is a gateway to violence.  Do you believe that the Jan 6 congressional hearing allow counsel to the accused and cross examining????

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Traveler said:

That to deny such justice is a gateway to violence.  Do you believe that the Jan 6 congressional hearing allow counsel to the accused and cross examining?

Here is the proof that this was not an insurrection.  The government suspended habeas corpus AGAINST ITS OWN CITIZENS and no one is able to stop it.  They are imprisoned in solitary confinement without a chance for bail or counsel.

When the government resorts to injustice to make their point, they've already proven that their point is not worthy of the justice system.

When there is a conflict between parties who both cry out that the other side is the offender, one need only ask: "Who is using injustice as a weapon?"

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I see they are focusing on “Jane’s revenge “. I notice it doesn’t say a thing about the JaneSentUs folks. Which has its own website, and are the folks responsible for doxxing  the home address of the supreme court justice.

You mean “Ruth Sent Us”, I trust?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Here is the proof that this was not an insurrection.  The government suspended habeas corpus AGAINST ITS OWN CITIZENS and no one is able to stop it.  They are imprisoned in solitary confinement without a chance for bail or counsel.

When the government resorts to injustice to make their point, they've already proven that their point is not worthy of the justice system.

When there is a conflict between parties who both cry out that the other side is the offender, one need only ask: "Who is using injustice as a weapon?"

I agree, but only in part.  I am of the opinion that there are efforts of insurrection - in essence to remake America.  I would be surprised is there was no one intended insurrection involve in some way with events of Jan 6th - an more surprised is there was not at least one individual on both sides of the "conflict". 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2022 at 6:21 PM, pam said:

Do you mean they are quoting when trying to edit?  Because I've tried it and it lets me edit.

 

What I mean is that the old page format had the "edit" button around the bottom of the post.  Now, it is hidden in that dot menu.  So, by habit, a lot of people seem to be going to the quote button when they want to edit.

So, it will eventually work out as people get used to the format.  But in the meantime, we can expect a lot of mostly deleted posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What I mean is that the old page format had the "edit" button around the bottom of the post.  Now, it is hidden in that dot menu.  So, by habit, a lot of people seem to be going to the quote button when they want to edit.

So, it will eventually work out as people get used to the format.  But in the meantime, we can expect a lot of mostly deleted posts.

Ahhh gotcha.  Yes I had noticed that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Traveler said:

do not know what MTG is - so I Googled it.  It says it is a card game - Magic: The Gathering. ????? 

 

Your confusion here is 100% on me. Sorry about that, I absolutely should have been more clear. My apologies, and I say that in all seriousness and humility. 
 

Here is who I was talking about. 
 

https://www.congress.gov/member/marjorie-greene/G000596?q={"search"%3A["O"]%2C"within"%3A["O"]}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What am I missing here?

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-politics-health-new-jersey-bcecfda68434ebd9094ff489459f1183

According to the AP, abortion clinics are somehow "afraid" that they will be targets of terror attacks once the SCOTUS opinion is released.

What kind of twisted logic gets them to the conclusion that they will be targets AFTER the decision is handed down?

They even state that the leak has provoked increased violence from the pro-abortion people. Where have we seen an increase from pro-choice people?  I haven't heard of ANY, much less an increase motivated by the leaked opinion.

Why should abortion clinics "brace" for the decision?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.ksl.com/article/50428930/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-states-can-ban-abortion

 

And it's done.

I think it's a good thing and I'm happy about it.

I'll give my somewhat controversial opinion: I'm not entirely against the legalization of abortion. I do think there should be a legal pathway in situations, but I also don't see any states full-on banning abortion no matter what (at least from what I'm aware).

If people are going to complain (and they will) all that changes is they write their more local representatives about the matter.

That's all this means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Backroads said:

That's all this means.

Actually, I noticed something else recently in various news sources across the political spectrum.  Language is more honest.

For decades, the language has be euphemistic: "Pro-choice/ Pro-life", "women's health", "reproductive health", "right to choose."

Recently, everyone is being more honest. Pro-abortion!/Anti-abortion!  Abortion rights! "Abort the baby".  It's not just an embryo or fetus or mass of cells anymore.  Actually a lot will still say that.  But I've heard a lot more language lately where the left openly admits they want to "kill the baby."  If you haven't heard it much, don't worry, you will hear more of it.  It's the natural course throughout history.

Once everyone is on board the bandwagon of honesty, we can really discuss the reality rather than ignore the real issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Actually, I noticed something else recently in various news sources across the political spectrum.  Language is more honest.

For decades, the language has be euphemistic: "Pro-choice/ Pro-life", "women's health", "reproductive health", "right to choose."

Recently, everyone is being more honest. Pro-abortion!/Anti-abortion!  Abortion rights! "Abort the baby".  It's not just an embryo or fetus or mass of cells anymore.  Actually a lot will still say that.  But I've heard a lot more language lately where the left openly admits they want to "kill the baby."  If you haven't heard it much, don't worry, you will hear more of it.  It's the natural course throughout history.

Once everyone is on board the bandwagon of honesty, we can really discuss the reality rather than ignore the real issue.

Y'know, you're right, and I have heard a shift toward what people really want over the past couple of decades and, largely, I've thought it was good. When I was a teenager/young adult, I noticed many people avoiding the concept that it was a baby. Fetus, clump of cells, etc, were incredibly popular terms. I rarely see anyone denying that there is a baby or at least the potential for a baby any more. I heard one person admit to changing it when someone got mad at them for denying their tragedy over infant loss and they admitted it affected their perception on it. That person was still for abortion rights, but stopped trying to deny what was happening. 

I like the honesty. It helps us all get to the real points.

Edited by Backroads
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is you:   "I can't believe 9 mostly white mostly men get to tell an entire country what they can and can't do!",

and this is also you: "I can't believe they overturned roe v wade, and took away a right from women!",

then you may have some more reading to do before you opine further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

If this is you:   "I can't believe 9 mostly white mostly men get to tell an entire country what they can and can't do!",

and this is also you: "I can't believe they overturned roe v wade, and took away a right from women!",

then you may have some more reading to do before you opine further.

My favorite take so far has been this one: 

https://www.newsweek.com/keith-olbermann-supreme-court-twitter-rant-reactions-1718631?amp=1

 

Because of course Olbermann felt the same way when gay marriage was legalized. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share