Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

:lol:

 

Barrett 50

 

Kavanaugh  57

 

Gorsuch 54

 

Your entire existence is irrelevant at a large enough time scale.

And those people are pretty old if you're under 20.

 

The Zeitgeist is unstoppable and it moves to the left.

Edited by Gene Frenkle
Posted
1 minute ago, Demongyz said:

I typically vote on 1A and 2A so never a Democrat.  I'm personally anti-abortion, but don't vote based on abortion.  I'm happy that it's going to be banned in many states and not happy that they will be killing 5 year olds in others, but the federal system exists for a reason and I support that.

What’s your stance on child hunger and the hundreds of thousands in foster care? Maybe increase taxes to help? No? Didn’t think so. 
 

George Carlin had a great bit on this.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Your entire existence is irrelevant at a large enough time scale.

And those people are pretty old if you're under 20.

 

The Zeitgeist is unstoppable and it moves to the left.

-Stalin

  • Haha (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, Buffalo_Stampede said:

What’s your stance on child hunger and the hundreds of thousands in foster care? Maybe increase taxes to help? No? Didn’t think so. 
 

George Carlin had a great bit on this.

I support easier and cheaper adoptions.  I support feeding children.  I don't think we should increase taxes, I think we should spend money more wisely.  How many kids could we feed with $40B?

Posted
3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

What’s your stance on child hunger and the hundreds of thousands in foster care? Maybe increase taxes to help? No? Didn’t think so. 
 

George Carlin had a great bit on this.

 

Amazing how relevant he still is today, after all these years.

  • Agree 1
Posted
Just now, Demongyz said:

I support easier and cheaper adoptions.  I support feeding children.  I don't think we should increase taxes, I think we should spend money more wisely.  How many kids could we feed with $40B?

Ask Elon Musk.

Posted
Just now, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Ask Elon Musk.

Why?

Just now, Gene Frenkle said:

 

AKA: the vast majority of people who live in the country who agree with a woman's right to choose.

Or a gunman showed up to Kavenagh's house with a gun and intent to kill.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

-Stalin

 

Calling me a commie? Socialist!?

 

What a douche

1 minute ago, Demongyz said:

Why?

Or a gunman showed up to Kavenagh's house with a gun and intent to kill.

 

How did they get those guns? 😆

Posted
3 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Calling me a commie? Socialist!?

 

What a douche

 

How did they get those guns? 😆

I'm calling you a fool

 

It's not whether he has a gun, it's what he will use it for.

Posted
1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

With all the recent focus on pronouns it appears that many of you have forgotten where babies come from. Do we need a refresher class? 

 

Don't change the subject. This is about our activist Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade.

 

Start a pronouns thread. This is actually important.

Posted
Just now, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Don't change the subject. This is about our activist Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade.

 

Start a pronouns thread. This is actually important.

Get a sense of humor Gene…but DIRECTLY ON the subject, you do know where babies come from, right?

Posted
1 minute ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Don't change the subject. This is about our activist Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade.

 

Start a pronouns thread. This is actually important.

This is about an originalist Supreme Court overturning an activist Supreme Court.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, muppy said:

You Know I am more moderate than most posters here. I look at the world with a lens that would rather seek peace and compromise instead of the constant gridlock and set in political sides butting heads.  Some issues are just not easy to compromise. Abortion is one of those areas. I kind of straddle the fence because being of the opinion that I hate abortion but vote for the right to choose. It is a position that I wish women wouldnt need to face nearly as often as does happen.

 

as far as politicos go yeah there are some watershed issues that guide a persons vote. Id have t choose the democrat because of issues like this one. I just dont feel the government has the right to say what I do with my own body.  I think he timing of when abortions are allowed to happen would be very valid compromise for women who aren't otherwise medically indicated

Me too, Mup. I'm moderate in many ways as well, get along with people quite nicely and really view the voting process as "Who is the candidate that will hurt me least?".  

 

As for abortion, it always struck me that somewhere between conception and birth just about every sensible person became pro-life.  Again, I was wrong. A woman's right to choose is a fair concept, but I'm not uncomfortable attaching my vote to a woman's right to choose at 40 weeks is reasonable across the board.   Somewhere between conception and 3...maybe 4 months seems reasonable to me, but hey, I'm just an old guy with grown children. 

 

I think the government already tells you some things you can and cannot do with your body, Mup.  Drugs, suicide, alcohol and smokes, come to mind.  I also think the government is a real crackerjack with the close cousin of "My body my rules" and that's telling people what they must do with the fruits of their labor, or the moral obligation one has to another in certain situations.  

 

I don't argue with people on this issue, Mup, it's a waste of time and issues can be misconstrued.  I'll go back to the basics and suggest that if the ruling was problematic to begin with, why not just be honest about that and deal with the outcome?   I'll tell you why---conflict drives votes. 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Get a sense of humor Gene…but DIRECTLY ON the subject, you do know where babies come from, right?

 

Yeah, I made a couple a while back. Figured it out.

Posted
Just now, Demongyz said:

This is about an originalist Supreme Court overturning an activist Supreme Court.

 

Originalism is a bunk jurisprudence.

Posted
Just now, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Yeah, I made a couple a while back. Figured it out.

So you agree that it doesn’t spontaneously combust….excellent! Just checking. 

Posted
Just now, ChiGoose said:

 

Originalism is a bunk jurisprudence.

Right, because if we were to create founding documents upon which the entire government is built, we should allow a few folks rewrite it willy nilly.  You want to change the constitution, call a convention of states.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...