America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 6 weeks ago by Sunoverbeach. 87 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Governing America: How to save the Supreme Court from itself
rfenst Online
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,625
To avoid breaking a precious institution, the nine justices need to restrain themselves


The Economist

Hippocrates condemned abortion; Aristotle thought it less cruel than exposing unwanted infants to the elements. The West has been arguing about this hard moral problem for over 2,000 years. Most Western democracies have found a compromise between the liberal position, held by this newspaper, that the state should not control women’s bodies; and the most conservative position, that any abortion is murder. In Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany and Japan, legislatures have allowed abortion early in pregnancy and made it illegal later. Most Americans agree with that, but their country stands apart.

Listen to this story. Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
A leaked draft of a majority opinion from America’s Supreme Court obtained by Politico, a news organisation, suggests that the court will overturn Roe v Wade, the 50-year-old decision that makes abortion legal until the fetus becomes viable. If so, state law would take precedence. Most abortions look set to become illegal in half of states; some bans would include cases of rape or incest. Better-off women can take time off work and travel to legal clinics, so the burden would fall mainly on poorer women. Banning abortion would increase the number of pregnancy-related deaths, by over 20%, according to one study.


Perhaps the judges will change their mind or temper their arguments before the final opinion is issued. Even so, with a 6-3 conservative majority, not the 5-4 split that has held for the past half-century, the court is poised to reopen some of the most contentious questions in American public life. In this, it risks damaging itself and accelerating the division of the country into two mutually hostile blocs.

The outsize power wielded by the court in 2022 derives from a political system that struggles to strike compromises. Lining up a majority in the House, 60 votes in the Senate (to override a filibuster) and a presidential signature is too hard. It is easier for politicians to fundraise off controversy rather than solve problems. Time and again on the thorniest questions—carbon-dioxide emissions, gay marriage, guns, abortion—Congress has failed to reflect public opinion.

By their dereliction, legislators dump big decisions on the justices. As a result Supreme Court confirmations have become trials of strength where the Senate majority holds sway. Donald Trump, who ran on a promise to pick judges explicitly to overturn Roe, further dissolved the idea of judicial independence. All this politicking heaps intolerable pressure on the court.

Conservative Americans, who may not have liked Mr Trump but admire his judges, may retort: so what? Liberals, they argue, broke the court in the 1950s and 1960s, pursuing a programme they could not get past Congress. Roe was shoddily argued and a correction is long overdue. Even if most Americans favour a compromise between a libertarian view and the belief that life begins at conception, judges are supposed to rule on the law, they say, not bend to public opinion.


That is surely right. However, the solution to one activist court 70 years ago is not another activist court today. When the legislature cannot pass laws on the big questions of the age, the courts bear a special responsibility, lest justice itself is poisoned. The court must indeed feel that it can go against public opinion. But in whatever it does it should weigh tradition and precedent and exercise restraint. If the justices take it upon themselves to cut through legislative knots, using their power maximally, they will transform themselves into the lifelong members of an all-powerful unelected third chamber.

Three bad outcomes may follow. The justices might find their judgments ignored. An America where the rule of law was weakened would be less free and more dysfunctional. If the court loses its ability to be the decider of last resort, the role asked of it in the presidential election in 2000—and again in 2020—it could lose its ability to settle disputes peacefully.

Second, if in the name of conservatism the justices start tearing up precedents that have stood for half a century, there will be growing political pressure to remake the court. Packing it is a terrible idea, and currently a fringe position in the Democratic Party. But if the court swings hard to the right, every Democratic presidential candidate in 2024 will be asked what they would do to tame a body in which a third of the justices were nominated and confirmed by a president and senators who represented a minority of Americans. Such proposals could be at issue even while the court had to rule on the outcome of the vote.

Third, America’s divisions into red and blue camps would deepen. The United States is a federal system where states enjoy discretion to write many of their own laws. But unlike the European Union it is also a nation. If state laws became so divergent that nobody in California could own a gun and gay people in Texas could not marry, that would lead to a trampling of the rights of minorities in those states. The only solution would be to move. But an America where almost everyone in one state was Republican and almost everyone in a neighbouring state was Democratic could hardly be expected to come together in any national endeavour. States bound in such an arrangement would hardly be united at all.

The ideal way to avoid this would be for the legislature to rediscover the art of compromise, so that the court could act as the arbiter it was meant to be. Political questions are best solved by politicians, not judges. That possibility looks awfully distant today, but Ireland managed to find a compromise on abortion by creating a citizens’ assembly which issued recommendations to the government. If only America could rediscover the spirit of institutional innovation and participatory democracy, some of the questions that now seem untouchable could be opened.

Until then the court should save itself by acting with restraint. It should also seek to bolster its own legitimacy. Congress is debating an ethics code, prompted in part by the discovery that Clarence Thomas’s wife, a Republican activist, was angling to overturn the election result. Rather than wait, the justices should impose a code on themselves. And, while they are at it, they should announce term limits. Some new members of the court could still be around in 2050. That is asking a lot of them, but unless justices act wisely now, the court will be a different place by then—and America a different country.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 10,737
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well
rfenst Online
#3 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,625
Sunoverbeach wrote:
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well

Good one.
MACS Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 74,941
Waaaaay back in the day, ol' Hippocrates and Aristotle didn't have a dozen ways to prevent pregnancies, like we do now.

Don't want kids... prevent yourself from getting pregnant. The pill. IUD. Condoms. Tubal ligation. Injections. Clip the nut strings. Etc...

Dg west deptford Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,644
Not too far back in the day!

& yes, this is relevant.

The injustice of killing the preborn has existed for thousands of years. We know abortion was practiced in Ancient Greece, & in Ancient Egypt as early as 1550 BC. Humanity is so sinful that when we want something – no matter how evil it is – we will try any barbaric method to get it.

But child sacrifice in Old Testament times. Really the only difference between abortion & child sacrifice (a.k.a. infanticide, like what Virginia’s Governor Northam was referring to in a video last year) is age & location. Abortion kills a baby before he or she is ready to be born; child sacrifice kills a child who is already born. Abortion kills a baby who hasn’t made it down the birth canal yet; child sacrifice kills a baby or older child who has made that six-inch journey.

Thus, child sacrifice, often mentioned in the Old Testament, is very much like abortion.

So what did child sacrifice look like in Bible times? The pagan nations surrounding the Children of Israel sometimes practiced child sacrifice as part of a cult, such as the cult of the Canaanite god Molech or of Baal or other unnamed deities. Other times they sacrificed humans in response to defeat or crisis. Child sacrifice to Molech, or Molek, in particular is described many times in the Old Testament as burning their “sons and daughters in the fire” (Deuteronomy 12:31, NIV).

Another passage more generally states, “They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to false gods. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood” (Psalm 106:37-38, NIV). This verse is referring to the Israelites’ turning away from God to the evil pagan practices of their neighbors.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 10,737
I once met an honest, caring politician that listened when I spoke and tried to help the country. Then I woke up.
ZRX1200 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,150
Some people just can’t stand a white woman with a black man.
RayR Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,436
ZRX1200 wrote:
Some people just can’t stand a white woman with a black man.


Ya, but from all the TV commercials with just that same racial mix, you'd think that they were telling us that's was the new normal.
rfenst Online
#9 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,625
ZRX1200 wrote:
Some people just can’t stand a white woman with a black man.

Bull-chit accusation of prejudice. It's her behavior and acts, not race (and you damn well know that).
rfenst Online
#10 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,625
RayR wrote:
Ya, but from all the TV commercials with just that same racial mix, you'd think that they were telling us that's was the new normal.

It may not be for you, but it is not your concern unless you are a bigot.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 10,737
Political parties are like toilet paper. Whichever side you choose, you end up getting sh1t.
Mike3316 Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 02-05-2022
Posts: 280
^ Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed regularly and for the same reason.
HockeyDad Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,095
rfenst wrote:
Bull-chit accusation of prejudice. It's her behavior and acts, not race (and you damn well know that).


Nope. That’s not how it works. Systemic racism at play.
RayR Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,436
rfenst wrote:
It may not be for you, but it is not your concern unless you are a bigot.


Unlike you, I know when some advertising wackos are virtue signaling. It's no accident there are so many interracial couples portrayed in commercials, it must be planned.
I told my wife that they are either telling me to trade her in for a black girl or her to trade me in for a black guy.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 10,737
^^ That virtue signaling is so early aughts. You know you should be trading her in for a black guy nowadays
HockeyDad Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,095
Sunoverbeach wrote:
^^ That virtue signaling is so early aughts. You know you should be trading her in for a black guy nowadays


Imma gonna have to agree. Get on it Ray.
Speyside2 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 1,863
Originality people, reading the same old crap is boring. You appear to not be interested in the information in the article Robert provided. Yes, abortion is a very emotional decision. The is a big but, no matter how anyone wants to discuss when does life begin, there is nothing in the constitution that states when does life begin. If I wanted to be a **** I could argue with you that inside the womb there is no life constitutionally and you would have zero constitutional argument against that. I will say if you think your religion should run our country you are the same as an Islamic fundamentalist.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 10,737
All answers/arguments get very philosophical at that point, i.e. what is life?

My own gut take is that there are instances where abortion should be a legal option. Don't ask me to define those instances. It's like the old descriptor of porn. I'll know it when I see it.

However, as Macs pointed out, there are several methods of contraception, and I don't believe abortion should be utilized in that capacity, especially repetitively.

To try to create a legal standing off those two wishy washy counterpoints? Impossible
RMAN4443 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,658
Why is it that if a pregnant woman gets attacked and killed, and the baby dies, why does
the attacker get charged with two murders????Think
DrMaddVibe Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 51,995
Speyside2 wrote:
Originality people, reading the same old crap is boring. You appear to not be interested in the information in the article Robert provided. Yes, abortion is a very emotional decision. The is a big but, no matter how anyone wants to discuss when does life begin, there is nothing in the constitution that states when does life begin. If I wanted to be a **** I could argue with you that inside the womb there is no life constitutionally and you would have zero constitutional argument against that. I will say if you think your religion should run our country you are the same as an Islamic fundamentalist.




“Abortion rights” are in the Constitution? Show me where.



At the University of North Georgia, some students put on a celebration recently. What were they celebrating? Abortion, of course. With cookies.

As UNG Students for Life reported, members of the Skeptics Society encouraged visitors to take fetus shaped cookies and give reasons why abortion should stay legal. Examples ranged from, “A woman controls her own body,” to, “My vagina is too pretty to let a fetus crawl out.” And then there was this:

https://www.liveaction.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/9-1-672x372.jpg

It’s common to hear how “abortion rights” are protected in the Constitution. When confronted with that argument, it’s best to respond with a single question.

Where?

You’ll typically get a puzzled look, which shouldn’t be surprising. After all, even the Supreme Court struggled to find an answer.

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court discovered a constitutional right to abortion. That’s interesting, because nowhere in the Constitution does the word “abortion” even appear. They got around this by claiming abortion falls under the “right of privacy.” Where’s that right spelled out? It isn’t. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion in Roe, and even he admitted “the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.”

How do you go about finding rights that the Constitution makes no mention of? I’m gonna let Justice Blackmun explain that himself.

In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.

In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8 -9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484 -485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed “fundamental” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.

They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 -542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453 -454; id., at 460, 463-465 [410 U.S. 113, 153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.


So, cases about pornography, police search procedure, telephone wiretap use, foreign language instruction, private education, interracial marriage, birth control, and the distribution of religious materials all add up to a “right of privacy.” OK…and why is abortion part of it? I don’t know–Blackmun just insisted that it was.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Also mentioned was “the detriment” of being denied the chance to abort. Dr. Anthony Levatino has performed over 1200 abortions, and in the video below, he describes what’s done to fetuses in the second trimester. Watch it and decide how much detriment they experience.

https://youtu.be/jgw4X7Dw_3k

After the amniotic fluid is removed, the abortionist uses a sopher clamp — a grasping instrument with rows of sharp “teeth” — to grasp and pull the baby’s arms and legs, tearing the limbs from the child’s body. The abortionist continues to grasp intestines, spine, heart, lungs, and any other limbs or body parts. The most difficult part of the procedure is usually finding, grasping and crushing the baby’s head. After removing pieces of the child’s skull, the abortionist uses a curette to scrape the uterus and remove the placenta and any remaining parts of the baby.

Not that children in the womb are the only ones for whom abortion has been detrimental: in case after case, child sex predators have used abortion to cover up their crimes and keep abusing their victims. Apparently Blackmun didn’t anticipate that.

This all helps to illustrate how important judicial appointments are, which is why pro-lifers should tell the presidential candidates it’s not something we’ll compromise on. While a right to abortion might be popular at the cookie table, you won’t find it in the Constitution. We need judges who are able to see that.


https://www.liveaction.org/news/abortion-rights-constitution-show/


Imagine that. Enjoy that lunch.
Speyside2 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 1,863
The premise of Roe V Wade is flawed and always has been. Also the outside the womb survivability premise should not ever have been the standard. Though my knowledge is rather limited I think the maximum time for an abortion should be somewhere between 12 weeks and 16 weeks. Plus let's do away with the term abortion. Either a woman is elective surgery or she is committing 1st degree murder. Again, just my thoughts and opinions.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 51,995
Then why the media meltdown?

I feel like someone has been lied to.

At the very least we're witnessing people that aren’t informed.
drglnc Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 267
MACS wrote:
Waaaaay back in the day, ol' Hippocrates and Aristotle didn't have a dozen ways to prevent pregnancies, like we do now.

Don't want kids... prevent yourself from getting pregnant. The pill. IUD. Condoms. Tubal ligation. Injections. Clip the nut strings. Etc...




And now multiple GOP candidates and sitting elected officials have said they would like to ban certain forms of birth control as well...
drglnc Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 267
RMAN4443 wrote:
Why is it that if a pregnant woman gets attacked and killed, and the baby dies, why does
the attacker get charged with two murders????Think



Why didn't pregnant women get child stimulus during the pandemic?
HockeyDad Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,095
drglnc wrote:
Why didn't pregnant women get child stimulus during the pandemic?


Because they we’re going to abort that child and pocket the money.
HockeyDad Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,095
RMAN4443 wrote:
Why is it that if a pregnant woman gets attacked and killed, and the baby dies, why does
the attacker get charged with two murders????Think


In California is she was on the way to Planned Parenthood you get one count of murder and one assist.
RayR Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,436
HD, if it happened in LA, wouldn't DA Gascón have the charges against the killer reduced to a misdemeanor?
HockeyDad Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,095
RayR wrote:
HD, if it happened in LA, wouldn't DA Gascón have the charges against the killer reduced to a misdemeanor?


He wouldn't even file charges. Same with Chesa Boudin. Although the deaths were unfortunate, it will ease the pressure of man made climate change.
RayR Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,436
HockeyDad wrote:
He wouldn't even file charges. Same with Chesa Boudin. Although the deaths were unfortunate, it will ease the pressure of man made climate change.


OK, I see the logic...killin' is cool if it's done in the name of fighting climate change.
That's sooooooo... Progressive!
drglnc Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 267
HockeyDad wrote:
Because they we’re going to abort that child and pocket the money.


right... every pregnant women during the pandemic was planning an abortion but since they didn't get the stimulus they decided against it?
Speyside2 Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 1,863
Doc, you cannot fix stupid. On any powerfully emotional/moral issue there we be a lot of stupid. I try my level headed best to never be part of the stupid, sometimes I fail. On this I can only speak of myself.

I really think very few have considered the ramifications at a state level. They will be significant for both Liberal and Conservative states IMHO. There will be other constitutional challenges. Take Texas for instance. There will be challenges of the criminality. There will be challenges of 6 weeks. You will also see a brain drain which will have an economic impact. Most though not all proffesional women will leave Texas. So will their husband's who want to get laid regularly. This will wreck havoc on the Texas economy. I think the same type of argument can be made for California with a few changes. Again, this is just my opinion.

I chose to spell correctly for this post so Ray has one less meaningless point to argue. Grammar wise I tried my best but grammar will never be a strength for me, so so Ray can still have that to be critical of, yet his drivel is meaningless. As I stated earlier you cannot fix stupid.
HockeyDad Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,095
If Texas has a brain drain back to California so they can get abortion on demand for free, that will just drive up the value of my house since we have such a shortage in the San Francisco area. Meanwhile I’ll be buying up Texas real estate just like I did in Florida after everyone died from ‘Rona there.

If Arizona, Nevada, or Oregon ban abortion, we will build abortion mills just across the state line just like fireworks stands. Job creation.
HockeyDad Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,095
drglnc wrote:
right... every pregnant women during the pandemic was planning an abortion but since they didn't get the stimulus they decided against it?


98.2% were.
Speyside2 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 1,863
I think the best value based property purchases will be in Austin. There are many proffesional women who are Liberals as are their husband's, they're going to ruin Texas. And it gets worse. They demand equal pay for equal work. Imagine that! Though I bet Texas has a plan, probably to make it a felony to move out of Texas. Of course this is perfectly legal given states rights and such.
Speyside2 Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 1,863
I think you are right about California. Personally, I would never live there. My integrity is more valuable than chasing additional income.
drglnc Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 267
HockeyDad wrote:
98.2% were.


GTFO with that idiotic Nonsense.
HockeyDad Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,095
Speyside2 wrote:
I think you are right about California. Personally, I would never live there. My integrity is more valuable than chasing additional income.


OK…so we build a building right on the state line around the gold ranch exit on I-80 or South Lake Tahoe. The California side sells abortions and the Nevada side sells guns and ammo.

Better yet….we build at both locations!
HockeyDad Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,095
drglnc wrote:
GTFO with that idiotic Nonsense.


It is a proven fact.
Speyside2 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 1,863
You handle the California side, I've got Nevada covered. Better yet we set up a ship on Lake Tahoe. Half in California half in Nevada!
drglnc Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 267
HockeyDad wrote:
It is a proven fact.



that 98.2% of pregnant women want abortion? And decided not to because of stimulus? you can not possibly be that dumb...
ZRX1200 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,150
rfenst wrote:
Bull-chit accusation of prejudice. It's her behavior and acts, not race (and you damn well know that).



Woah Hoss….I was making a reverse woke joke about the author of this 💩not you. I would hope you would know better than that, any fun I poke at you is usually pretty obvious I thought.
ZRX1200 Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,150
Oregon isn’t going to ban abortions. Our Democrat leaders have killed all industry in the state opting for a Green economy with a sprinkle of Tourism.

Translated:
They late term aborted our independence from federal dollars and traded in for virtue signaling cache.

You don’t even need a passport and hard drugs aren’t a felony! Come enjoy Portland!
RayR Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,436
Here in Peeple's Republic of New York, Dicktator HoHo Hochul announced a $35Mil stimulus FOR abortion killin'.
That includes $10 Million for security grants...you know to beat back the violent right-wing extremists and stuff.
She calls it a "major investment" as "New York Leads the Nation". She's damn proud of it too! Take that California!

Governor Hochul Announces Nation-leading $35 Million Investment to Support Abortion Providers in New York

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-nation-leading-35-million-investment-support-abortion-providers-new
ZRX1200 Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,150
I hope it’s targeting high minority areas.
RayR Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,436
ZRX1200 wrote:
I hope it’s targeting high minority areas.


You know it will. It's all part of the Progressive's eugenics program to solve poverty and fight climate change.
HockeyDad Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,095
drglnc wrote:
that 98.2% of pregnant women want abortion? And decided not to because of stimulus? you can not possibly be that dumb...


It’s settled science.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 10,737
A woman in a hot-air balloon is lost, so she shouts to a man below, "Excuse me. I promised a friend I would meet him, but I don't know where I am."
"You're at 31 degrees, 14.57 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude," he replies.
"You must be a Democrat."
"I am. How did you know?"
"Because everything you told me is technically correct, but the information is useless, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've been no help."
"You must be a Republican."
"Yes. How did you know?"
"You've risen to where you are due to a lot of hot air, you made a promise you couldn't keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."
Speyside2 Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 1,863
^ That is pure gold.
rfenst Online
#49 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,625
HockeyDad wrote:
If Texas has a brain drain back to California so they can get abortion on demand for free, that will just drive up the value of my house since we have such a shortage in the San Francisco area. Meanwhile I’ll be buying up Texas real estate just like I did in Florida after everyone died from ‘Rona there.

If Arizona, Nevada, or Oregon ban abortion, we will build abortion mills just across the state line just like fireworks stands. Job creation.

I heard your bathroom remodel was really code for brief surgical facilities, so to speak.
rfenst Online
#50 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,625
drglnc wrote:
GTFO with that idiotic Nonsense.

"98.2%" is an inside joke here from an idiot who used to post.

He once alleged that degree of certainty about cuban cigars being fake out of his @SS- while EVERYONE knew he was 1,000% totally wrong. It was hilarious to so many of us at the time.
So now, anytime someone wants to throw a degree of certainty, prediction or polling number out of their @ss, it's 98.2%...
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>