(06-26-2022 11:58 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 11:51 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 11:08 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-25-2022 01:54 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-25-2022 12:24 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  I did not say I was for killing babies. I am pro choice when it is a fetus but keep being obtuse on purpose.

Just remember we live in a 2 party system.

There are cultures that practice infanticide. A human fetus is a baby. Be honest with yourself. Killing babies doesnt bother you

Just be true to yourself

How many fetuses survive outside the womb at 15 weeks? ZERO. Not a baby.

When the choice was presented to me I said no as did the woman carrying our child. But it is about the right of each woman to decide their bodies. To choose. You hate freedom and choice.

Just be true to yourself.

Its just amazing how massively ignorant and self owing leftist logic consistently is.

The issue is handed back to the voters to make a choice on and you scream choice has been taken away. And it basically guarantees abortion will always be legal in nearly have the country....but choice was taken away.

Progressives minds are the minds of 14 year old girls.

You even post like an angry teenage girl.

You mean the same voters that overwhelmingly agreed with Roe v Wade?

Great argument. Crack open a history book and take a look at some of the absolutely immoral practices that were condoned in the past. Just because people support something doesn't necessarily make it right nor constitutional.

(06-27-2022 08:28 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 08:22 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 08:18 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 05:09 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Women will become more selective when deciding to have intercourse. History and science has shown time and time again men lose their damn mind when this happens. Violence against women will go up. Injury and death will go up due to back alley abortions. Issues with marriage and family are not due to abortion they are due to all the things “Christians” say don’t exist. They don’t understand freedom let alone live it.

I don't know about you, but when a woman has told me no, it didn't make me violent. My wife tells me no on things and I don't beat her.

Sounds like you may have experience with women telling you no and you taking action against them... Care to share?

frickin weirdos. women need to be able to kill babies because if they can it will piss men off when they cant get laid.


the prog filth are truly some sick twisted weird freaks.

Apparently this guy forgot that there's these things called contraceptives that will allow sex to occur and much unlike the highly touted jab, it lessens the chances of pregnancy.

Crazy how personal responsibility works.

You mean the same things Thomas is signaling he wants to allow states the right to be able to ban? I enjoy how Thomas says that any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” and his citations for that are himself. Like seriously you can't even find Scalia saying this?

(06-27-2022 02:31 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 08:28 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 08:22 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 08:18 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 05:09 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Women will become more selective when deciding to have intercourse. History and science has shown time and time again men lose their damn mind when this happens. Violence against women will go up. Injury and death will go up due to back alley abortions. Issues with marriage and family are not due to abortion they are due to all the things “Christians” say don’t exist. They don’t understand freedom let alone live it.

I don't know about you, but when a woman has told me no, it didn't make me violent. My wife tells me no on things and I don't beat her.

Sounds like you may have experience with women telling you no and you taking action against them... Care to share?

frickin weirdos. women need to be able to kill babies because if they can it will piss men off when they cant get laid.


the prog filth are truly some sick twisted weird freaks.

Apparently this guy forgot that there's these things called contraceptives that will allow sex to occur and much unlike the highly touted jab, it lessens the chances of pregnancy.

Crazy how personal responsibility works.

You mean the same things Thomas is signaling he wants to allow states the right to be able to ban? I enjoy how Thomas says that any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” and his citations for that are himself. Like seriously you can't even find Scalia saying this?

He stated these cases should be re-visited and overturned, but just because they are re-visited doesn't mean they would be overturned.. And in the same sense I don't think a Justice can revisit a case unless something comes up. To do that is overreach.

(06-27-2022 02:56 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:31 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 08:28 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 08:22 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 08:18 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I don't know about you, but when a woman has told me no, it didn't make me violent. My wife tells me no on things and I don't beat her.

Sounds like you may have experience with women telling you no and you taking action against them... Care to share?

frickin weirdos. women need to be able to kill babies because if they can it will piss men off when they cant get laid.
A

the prog filth are truly some sick twisted weird freaks.

Apparently this guy forgot that there's these things called contraceptives that will allow sex to occur and much unlike the highly touted jab, it lessens the chances of pregnancy.

Crazy how personal responsibility works.

You mean the same things Thomas is signaling he wants to allow states the right to be able to ban? I enjoy how Thomas says that any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” and his citations for that are himself. Like seriously you can't even find Scalia saying this?

He stated these cases should be re-visited and overturned, but just because they are re-visited doesn't mean they would be overturned.. And in the same sense I don't think a Justice can revisit a case unless something comes up. To do that is overreach.

And that statement is a pretty clear call to action to bring those cases, and that they will get a receptive ear. He's screaming to the right wing activist legal community bring us cases and we'll strike these things down.

(06-27-2022 03:07 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:56 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:31 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 08:28 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 08:22 AM)shere khan Wrote:  frickin weirdos. women need to be able to kill babies because if they can it will piss men off when they cant get laid.
A

the prog filth are truly some sick twisted weird freaks.

Apparently this guy forgot that there's these things called contraceptives that will allow sex to occur and much unlike the highly touted jab, it lessens the chances of pregnancy.

Crazy how personal responsibility works.

You mean the same things Thomas is signaling he wants to allow states the right to be able to ban? I enjoy how Thomas says that any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” and his citations for that are himself. Like seriously you can't even find Scalia saying this?

He stated these cases should be re-visited and overturned, but just because they are re-visited doesn't mean they would be overturned.. And in the same sense I don't think a Justice can revisit a case unless something comes up. To do that is overreach.

And that statement is a pretty clear call to action to bring those cases, and that they will get a receptive ear. He's screaming to the right wing activist legal community bring us cases and we'll strike these things down.

And if you read the other opinions you would know he would lose those 8-1

(06-27-2022 03:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 03:07 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:56 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:31 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 08:28 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Apparently this guy forgot that there's these things called contraceptives that will allow sex to occur and much unlike the highly touted jab, it lessens the chances of pregnancy.

Crazy how personal responsibility works.

You mean the same things Thomas is signaling he wants to allow states the right to be able to ban? I enjoy how Thomas says that any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” and his citations for that are himself. Like seriously you can't even find Scalia saying this?

He stated these cases should be re-visited and overturned, but just because they are re-visited doesn't mean they would be overturned.. And in the same sense I don't think a Justice can revisit a case unless something comes up. To do that is overreach.

And that statement is a pretty clear call to action to bring those cases, and that they will get a receptive ear. He's screaming to the right wing activist legal community bring us cases and we'll strike these things down.

And if you read the other opinions you would know he would lose those 8-1

I'll bet you big money that when the cases Thomas name checked get brought before the SC in the very near future not a single one of them loses 8-1. I'm not certain any of them would stand, specifically Obergefell. The rest of them are letting Thomas send out the bat signal while pretending that somehow the exact same reasoning they used to say abortion isn't in the constitution won't apply to those cases. There's no logical way to make that argument. Thomas is the only one being honest, that if you are going to argue that logic to overturn Roe then there's no constitutional grounds for any of those cases he name checked (and same for the big one he didn't mention Loving, I wonder why he left that one off).

(06-27-2022 04:15 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 03:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 03:07 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:56 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:31 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You mean the same things Thomas is signaling he wants to allow states the right to be able to ban? I enjoy how Thomas says that any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” and his citations for that are himself. Like seriously you can't even find Scalia saying this?

He stated these cases should be re-visited and overturned, but just because they are re-visited doesn't mean they would be overturned.. And in the same sense I don't think a Justice can revisit a case unless something comes up. To do that is overreach.

And that statement is a pretty clear call to action to bring those cases, and that they will get a receptive ear. He's screaming to the right wing activist legal community bring us cases and we'll strike these things down.

And if you read the other opinions you would know he would lose those 8-1

I'll bet you big money that when the cases Thomas name checked get brought before the SC in the very near future not a single one of them loses 8-1. I'm not certain any of them would stand, specifically Obergefell. The rest of them are letting Thomas send out the bat signal while pretending that somehow the exact same reasoning they used to say abortion isn't in the constitution won't apply to those cases. There's no logical way to make that argument. Thomas is the only one being honest, that if you are going to argue that logic to overturn Roe then there's no constitutional grounds for any of those cases he name checked (and same for the big one he didn't mention Loving, I wonder why he left that one off).

it doesn't matter ... what matters is he is fully aware of political bias in previous decisions relative to constitutional scope .... or did you really believe the 10th wasn't the real reason Roe v. Wade was a joke to begin with...

faux semantical bias bs that spews from folk like ewe is what got it us to this point....

in ewer mind, this is dirty pool ... that's the irony

/rhetoricalsarcasm #constitution'sTurnNow

(06-27-2022 04:52 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 04:15 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 03:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 03:07 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-27-2022 02:56 PM)gdunn Wrote:  He stated these cases should be re-visited and overturned, but just because they are re-visited doesn't mean they would be overturned.. And in the same sense I don't think a Justice can revisit a case unless something comes up. To do that is overreach.

And that statement is a pretty clear call to action to bring those cases, and that they will get a receptive ear. He's screaming to the right wing activist legal community bring us cases and we'll strike these things down.

And if you read the other opinions you would know he would lose those 8-1

I'll bet you big money that when the cases Thomas name checked get brought before the SC in the very near future not a single one of them loses 8-1. I'm not certain any of them would stand, specifically Obergefell. The rest of them are letting Thomas send out the bat signal while pretending that somehow the exact same reasoning they used to say abortion isn't in the constitution won't apply to those cases. There's no logical way to make that argument. Thomas is the only one being honest, that if you are going to argue that logic to overturn Roe then there's no constitutional grounds for any of those cases he name checked (and same for the big one he didn't mention Loving, I wonder why he left that one off).

it doesn't matter ... what matters is he is fully aware of political bias in previous decisions relative to constitutional scope .... or did you really believe the 10th wasn't the real reason Roe v. Wade was a joke to begin with...

faux semantical bias bs that spews from folk like ewe is what got it us to this point....

in ewer mind, this is dirty pool ... that's the irony

/rhetoricalsarcasm #constitution'sTurnNow

this my man. it wasnt even about the act, it was about whether the constitution said it was a protected right to perform the act. same with the other overreaching decisions.

if they wanna kill babies so bad they need to pass a law



the simpletons will never make that distinction.

a bit broad in scope, but some interesting points made on what has been going on.

Censored by the Far-Left...what are they so afraid of?

Should US taxpayer money be used to fund abortions? Most people think NO, but Democrats...

Democrats Want to Force Americans to Fund Abortions, Spend $350 Million on Abortion Travel

Quote:“While at least a dozen states have acted swiftly to save lives after Dobbs, radical Democrats will stop at nothing to expand abortion on demand, paid for by taxpayers, up to the moment of birth. At the same time they seek massive payouts to the profit-driven abortion industry that spends millions to elect them, Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren want to ‘shut down’ nonprofits that outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities 14 to one and provide real services for women and families. Abortion is not health care, it is not ‘family planning,’ and abortion businesses do not need or deserve taxpayer dollars.”

Senate Democrats’ latest spending bills for FY 2023 include the following extreme provisions:

-Gutting much of the Hyde family of amendments, which have saved more than 2.5 million American lives.
-Appropriating $350 million in taxpayer dollars to fund grants and contracts with “public or non-profit private entities” for abortion-related travel costs, building and renovating abortion facilities, and more, “to remain available until expended.”
-Appropriating $10 million to create an abortion “czar” to promote unsupervised, at-home chemical abortions.
- Forcing Title X grantees to provide abortion drugs, counseling and referrals in direct violation of statute, and more.

This is on top of multiple votes on the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act – legislation that would expand abortion on demand until the moment of birth and block new and existing pro-life laws. Additionally:

-23 Democratic lawmakers led by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) are calling on Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough to expand taxpayer-funded abortion on demand until birth through the VA. Republican members of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs last year reminded the administration that federal law and regulations prohibit the VA from offering abortion or counseling for abortion.
-Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing this Friday to push their extreme agenda – the sixth Democrat congressional hearing on abortion this month after the Dobbs decision.
-Democrats have misled the public on the impact of Dobbs by pushing the “Right to Contraception Act,” better described as the Payouts for Planned Parenthood Act.


“Democrats’ pro-abortion agenda is deeply unpopular with the American people. We thank Senate Appropriations Vice Chairman Richard Shelby and all our allies in Congress who are standing with unborn children and mothers. Our ground team is working tirelessly to expose and defeat pro-abortion extremists at the ballot box.”

This election cycle, SBA Pro-Life America and its affiliated entities plan to spend $78 million to protect life across America. This includes reaching eight million voters across battleground states – four million directly at their doors – to educate them on key issues and win pro-life majorities in the U.S. House and Senate.

(06-24-2022 03:49 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 03:42 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  lmao ... I'm with ya GO (already responded to such in the other thread) ... let's see how good he/they/it/wtfe is in isolation ...

#chompinOnBit

Lets see you offer up anything other than riddles and limericks

Your failure to understand him is on you. Perhaps you aren't putting enough effort into it.

(06-24-2022 04:41 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 04:28 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 03:53 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Get married.

Stay married, even if it isn't perfect. WORK on your marriage.

Have lots of kids.

Homeschool the kids, if possible, to avoid indoctrination. If you can't afford to homeschool, try to find scholarships and/or financial aid to put them in a school that more closely aligns with traditional American values.

Teach your kids to love this country, even with her flaws and warts.

Work hard. Let your kids see you work hard.

Teach them to be grateful and kind. You do that by being grateful and kind YOURSELF.

Do that for a few generations, and we'll be right back on track.

Now describe how you afford any of that.

Only 2 of those things cost money. Having kids and putting them in a school.

I explained how to afford non-public school... but I can go over it again.
1) Scholarships - there are TONS of them.
2) Financial aid.
3) Work really freaking hard (multiple jobs if you have to) and understand that your child's education is more important than your semi-annual beach vacation or season tickets, if times are tight.
4) Find a charter school with a great reputation for not pushing woke ideology.

If you want to homeschool, find a remote job. There are SO many remote opportunities, especially now, post-COVID. Excuses don't work anymore.

There are plenty of reasons to say "that sounds hard, it won't work"... but that is a loser, defeatist mentality. If you want a better life for your kids, ******* go get it and stop complaining.

He's steering you away from the topic at hand in case you didn't notice. Rather than moving forward from your positions as starting points he is trying to automatically and cynically shoot them down.

(06-24-2022 05:09 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Women will become more selective when deciding to have intercourse. History and science has shown time and time again men lose their damn mind when this happens. Violence against women will go up. Injury and death will go up due to back alley abortions. Issues with marriage and family are not due to abortion they are due to all the things “Christians” say don’t exist. They don’t understand freedom let alone live it.

Hyperbolic much? And can you please cite your sources for these opinions you are trying to disguise as facts?

(06-24-2022 05:32 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 05:09 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Women will become more selective when deciding to have intercourse. History and science has shown time and time again men lose their damn mind when this happens. Violence against women will go up. Injury and death will go up due to back alley abortions. Issues with marriage and family are not due to abortion they are due to all the things “Christians” say don’t exist. They don’t understand freedom let alone live it.

re bolded: Really? I'm genuinely curious to read more about that if you have references.

Regardless, I don't see how this holds much water as an abortion rationale. In fact, it's kind of gross. Allow women to have abortions because they need to be less selective about their sexual partners or they'll be raped or assaulted. Dude, I'm pro choice and I find this a disastrous argument. It's right there with "death penalty saves money".

He doesn't, it's simply more BS he's pulled out of his ass.