Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Dred Scott
Author Message
scorpius Offline

Posts: 7,486
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 63
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Post: #41
RE: Dred Scott
(Yesterday 06:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The pro-life movement was really more evangelicals and neocons than libertarian conservatives/republicans. I am very much in the latter group, but really did not see Reagan leaning too far toward the former.

You should google this a little more. As early as 1976, Reagan came out as pro-life, and ran on that. It's what got the ball rolling for the GOP to be pro-life. A condition for Bush to be his running-mate in 1980 was to become pro-life as well. Keep in mind Reagan was pro-choice before 1976 and Bush was pro-choice before 1980. The original sin definitely can be attributed to Reagan when he "converted" in 1976. The pro-life momentum just picked up after that when the Nixon fiasco unfolded.

And this pattern of desperation for votes by catering to the pro-life movement (despite not actually believing in it at heart) continued in the GOP throughout the decades, with the most recent example being Trump. They all signed on with the devil, leaving future generations to deal with the aftermath.

(Yesterday 09:25 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The allegation of “blatant unconstitutionality” of this law is precisely the matter at issue before the judicial system. You demand that the Supreme Court decide the issue before hearing the case — indeed, before the trial court hears the case — and suggest that failing to do so would be a reversal of judicial precedent. I’m sorry but that’s just not how judicial precedent works. Not even close.

I never suggested they decide the case. Only suggested they hold precedent (as they all swore to do so under oath during their nomination hearings) by not allowing a law to go into effect during the deliberation process that would have the net effect of banning abortion, like the court has done so for the past several decades until now.

When a judicial nominee has to outright lie under oath or at the very least shadily and creepily avoid answering questions on this topic and others in their confirmation hearings, you KNOW they can not be trusted on the highest court in the land. When this started happening in the early 90's with Thomas, you knew the pact with the devil was in blood, and it was only a matter of time before we'd all have to pay for it.

(Yesterday 09:35 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  It was approximately the same time (1970’s) that the Democrats (at the National level) embraced the pro-choice movement on abortion. Some consider *that* to have been (and still is today) “a deal with the Devil”. But using that kind of descriptive language has had no impact on Democrats/pro-choice people, and it is equally meaningless when used against Republicans/pro-life people.

Pro-choice was bi-partisan up until Reagan suddenly saw the light on the issue (like Trump) in 1976 in a desperate fake attempt to get votes. Democrats never really moved from their position, as they never wanted to politicize it as it was a private issue of choice.

But if you still don't believe in the devil, here might be the first sign that he has arrived. Newsom in CA was clearly in trouble up until a few weeks ago. Then the Supreme Court went nuts. As soon as that ruling came down, the tide turned. Dems felt the heat from the devil. It rallied them, and as of right now Newsom's vote count is 63.8%, which is 2% higher than the 61.8% he got when he was first elected. It will likely go even higher in the final tally.

You can believe this is a coincidence. History would say you're wrong.
(This post was last modified: Today 02:09 AM by scorpius.)
Today 02:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

User(s) browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)

Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.