The Most Fresh & Cordial Political Thread Ever

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Couldn't do it without a Democrat in the White House.

I have no problems with Bill Clinton. Definitely our best president in my life I can remember. A bit too young for Ronald Reagan's presidency.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by mooby

Let's just shoot nukes at Russia so they'll shoot nukes at us and we can end this failed human experiment. Might as well speed it up anyways.

Before this happens, everyone at the Commander's Post, if not a believer in Jesus, please become one. Then we can go undefeated every year in heaven together. Blissful gameday threads.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

I have no problems with Bill Clinton. Definitely our best president in my life I can remember. A bit too young for Ronald Reagan's presidency.

Was about to jump on you on this until I saw the caveat explaining why you didn't say Reagan.

One can reasonably argue who the best post war President was if you limit yourself to choosing between Truman or Reagan. If you don't limit yourself to those two you aren't being reasonable.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by punch it in

https://www.thenation.com/article/po...ite-supremacy/

https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-jus...midwifery-bans

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blo...acist-policies

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...-is-overturned

Do your homework. Both of you.
You cant be so naïve to think something pushed by the hard right bible thumping maga people isn’t somehow beneficial to whites. It isn’t as simple as oh more whites get abortion so sorry come again. That is a lazy way out.

I read your sources The Nation's article provides examples of racists who think abortion disproportionally effects whites so they oppose abortion; ACLU the history of how those who performed abortions (midwives) lost their position to white doctors; Commonwealth that abortions are good for brown people because they have higher post birth mortality rates (seriously that is their argument??) and PBS similar to the commonwealth article saying fewer abortions will impact minorities disproportionally because minorities are the ones that get abortions in larger proportions than their population demographics. This last one basically confirming what I said and showing the racists from the Nation article are idiots who don't understand demographic statistics (Being racists they should support abortion as it slows the decline of a majority white population)

Now I'm sure most of those racists discussed above are probably Maga types (They're idiots), all I'm saying is there is not a valid racist reason to be opposed to abortion (but there is one to be supportive of it).

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

I have no problems with Bill Clinton. Definitely our best president in my life I can remember. A bit too young for Ronald Reagan's presidency.

If they could have done it without him , why didn't they?

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by Giantone

If they could have done it without him , why didn't they?

Huh?

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Are you saying men can't get pregnant, they can't be birthing people?

[mooby]

This pro-lifer makes the most reasonable argument that I can respect - starting with #9. There used to be a point in time when anti-abortionists were reasonable in their beliefs - by including exceptions for rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother those were reasonable positions to take. But now most anti-abortion laws include no exceptions and are made by hard-liners - therefore making our position hard-line that your position is entirely unreasonable. It's why this discussion is pointless. You're set in your beliefs and we're set in ours. The advancing of your entirely unpopular position by hardliner SCOTUS justices means we have to be equally hardline in our approach.

The fact that 3 of the most recently affirmed justices had to lie just to get onto the bench affirms how unpopular your position is - if they had been honest about their intentions they never would've been confirmed by dipshits like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. They literally thought your party would be honorable in their statements to be confirmed to a lifetime appointment and now they look like idiots for trusting them.

This sums up the entire thing pretty well for me.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by mooby

....... But now most anti-abortion laws include no exceptions and ....You're set in your beliefs and we're set in ours. The advancing of your entirely unpopular position by hardliner SCOTUS justices means we have to be equally hardline in our approach.....
.

What is your definition of an anti-abortion law?

And who is the you you are talking to?

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by mooby

This pro-lifer makes the most reasonable argument that I can respect - starting with #9. There used to be a point in time when anti-abortionists were reasonable in their beliefs - by including exceptions for rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother those were reasonable positions to take. But now most anti-abortion laws include no exceptions and are made by hard-liners - therefore making our position hard-line that your position is entirely unreasonable. It's why this discussion is pointless. You're set in your beliefs and we're set in ours. The advancing of your entirely unpopular position by hardliner SCOTUS justices means we have to be equally hardline in our approach.

The fact that 3 of the most recently affirmed justices had to lie just to get onto the bench affirms how unpopular your position is - if they had been honest about their intentions they never would've been confirmed by dipshits like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. They literally thought your party would be honorable in their statements to be confirmed to a lifetime appointment and now they look like idiots for trusting them.

This sums up the entire thing pretty well for me.

If their position is so unpopular, then you have nothing to worry about. This doesn't ban abortions. It just let's voters in each state decide. Exactly as designed by a thing I believe is called The Constitution. If everyone loves the right to end an innocent life, then it will be allowed in all 50 states.

[mooby]

The fact that neither of you see a problem with potential SCOTUS justices lying to get appointed to a lifetime position on the bench tells me everything I need to know. Not wasting my time anymore.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by mooby

The fact that neither of you see a problem with potential SCOTUS justices lying to get appointed to a lifetime position on the bench tells me everything I need to know. Not wasting my time anymore.

Who cares about lies, or crimes, or wrong doer’s Mooby? It is the leakers that need to be dealt with! I mean if i pull the wool over the publics eyes, or commit a crime, and they don’t realize it that’s cool, but if someone leaks that and the public finds out the truth … well that’s a fuckin problem. Lol.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by mooby

The fact that neither of you see a problem with potential SCOTUS justices lying to get appointed to a lifetime position on the bench tells me everything I need to know. Not wasting my time anymore.

The Democrat's most recent nominee said she can't even define what a woman is. That's not lying? You don't have to be a biologist to define that.

Also, they all said Roe vs. Wade is precedent. None of them ever said it wouldn't or couldn't be overturned.

https://www.verifythis.com/article/n...1-05ea5fbcb05a

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/10961...ation-hearings

Also, while precedent is important, it's not an “inexorable command.” And yes, while I understand the meaning based on the context in which it was used I had to look up the exact definition. Precedents can and have been overturned before.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...d-a-precedent/

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...mark-decisions

https://theconversation.com/the-supr...egation-168052

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

The Democrat's most recent nominee said she can't even define what a woman is. That's not lying? You don't have to be a biologist to define that.

Also, they all said Roe vs. Wade is precedent. None of them ever said it wouldn't or couldn't be overturned.

https://www.verifythis.com/article/n...1-05ea5fbcb05a

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/10961...ation-hearings

Also, while precedent is important, it's not an “inexorable command.” And yes, while I understand the meaning based on the context in which it was used I had to look up the exact definition. Precedents can and have been overturned before.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...d-a-precedent/

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...mark-decisions

https://theconversation.com/the-supr...egation-168052

They said it's established Law and no need to be revisited.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Who cares about lies, or crimes, or wrong doer’s Mooby? It is the leakers that need to be dealt with! I mean if i pull the wool over the publics eyes, or commit a crime, and they don’t realize it that’s cool, but if someone leaks that and the public finds out the truth … well that’s a fuckin problem. Lol.

See my question is what if it's the Republican Judges clerk that leak it? Will there still be outrage? Public has a right to know.