June 21, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, Kz! said: I did, and, yes, that was the gist. Imagine how disgusting of a human you have to be to write a story like that. "Man, poor down on her luck 18 year old is dealing with two fussy infants. It's a shame those kids aren't dead." The left is utterly vile. How dare a newspaper write a story about how people's lives have changed based on a new law!
June 21, 20223 yr 10 minutes ago, lynched1 said: I have a feeling they're all being paid. Where can I apply? I'm always looking for a side hustle.
June 21, 20223 yr 37 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Again, assume Republicans are going to play dirty at every single opportunity, because they always do. They're vile, disgusting scumbags who hate America. Dems should always act accordingly. In this case, all it would've taken would've been RGB looking in the mirror and realizing that she's old as F and she should retire for the good of the country. But she didn't. Because she was an arrogant ****. 25 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Did anyone have the idea that Mitch would attempt what he did? Were there any articles written that warned about the potential use of such a tactic? I don't remember any scholars or legal experts pointing out the danger that the Senate could simply refuse to take up the nomination. My point is that, I certainly don't think RBG is blameless, but you're dabbling a little bit in revisionist history here. If you can go back and show me that people were imagining and worried about the scenario that played out, then I would agree with your larger point, but I think it just wasn't something that was conceivable to you, me, or anyone in the know at the time. RGB’s seat is not property of the Democratic Party. And whining about how Republicans act in confirming SCOTUS judges is rich coming from the party that invented Borking.
June 21, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: How dare a newspaper write a story about how people's lives have changed based on a new law! lol lots of coping going on here. Maybe some seething as well. "here's a picture of two angels sleeping and a story about how nice it would have been if the mother had been allowed to kill them."
June 21, 20223 yr Just now, Kz! said: lol lots of coping going on here. Maybe some seething as well. "here's a picture of two angels sleeping and a story about how nice it would have been if the mother had been allowed to kill them." How dare a media outlet show the consequences of actions taken by the government!
June 21, 20223 yr 17 minutes ago, Kz! said: I did, and, yes, that was the gist. Imagine how disgusting of a human you have to be to write a story like that. "Man, poor down on her luck 18 year old is dealing with two fussy infants. It's a shame those kids aren't dead." The left is utterly vile. The left: "it's okay to kill kids when in the womb because it will be easier on the mother, it's the mothers right to decide if she wants to kill them" Also the left to the parents of children who they didn't kill in the womb, when they want to groom kids: "These kids are not your kids they are our kids"
June 21, 20223 yr 9 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: How dare a media outlet show the consequences of actions taken by the government! Yes, the "consequences" in this instance being two infants being allowed to live and the writer lamenting that fact. Sure, nothing ghoulish about that.
June 21, 20223 yr Author 19 minutes ago, TEW said: RGB’s seat is not property of the Democratic Party. And whining about how Republicans act in confirming SCOTUS judges is rich coming from the party that invented Borking. That's a pretty baseless comparison. Bork was given a hearing and an up-or-down vote. I wasn't even really talking about RBG's seat other than replying to Van's assertion that this is all her fault. I was talking about Mitch refusing to allow for a hearing when Scalia died.
June 21, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: That's a pretty baseless comparison. Bork was given a hearing and an up-or-down vote. I wasn't even really talking about RBG's seat other than replying to Van's assertion that this is all her fault. I was talking about Mitch refusing to allow for a hearing when Scalia died. Oh yeah, it would have been totally better and you would have been totally content had the GOP simply slandered the sh** out the moron Garland like democrats did to Bork, Thomas and Cav.
June 21, 20223 yr Author 1 minute ago, TEW said: Oh yeah, it would have been totally better and you would have been totally content had the GOP simply slandered the sh** out the moron Garland like democrats did to Bork, Thomas and Cav. I would've at least had no argument that they violated the Constitution. That's the issue at hand here.
June 21, 20223 yr Author Once again, TEW is flexing his libertarian wings by emphatically supporting gross violations of a republic's constitution.
June 21, 20223 yr Just now, EaglesRocker97 said: I would've at least had no argument that they violated the Constitution. That's the issue at hand here. You have no argument that they violated the constitution. No where in the constitution does it require anything in regards to formal proceedings.
June 21, 20223 yr 57 minutes ago, Kz! said: There is something extra creepy about these stories... like what's the WaPo's point here? That the mother would be so much better off if her infant children were dead? Just gross. There is no point The liberal media panicked when Bidens ratings were headed south so they tried to make this a wedge issue. Problem is they shot their wad too soon (pun intended) and Biden still f'ing blows so now all they can do is try to drag the story out as long as possible. Same reason every single discharge of a firearm now makes national news as a "mass shooting"
June 21, 20223 yr 31 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: How dare a media outlet show the consequences of actions taken by the government! Thats actually the twins middle names, Consequence and Repercussion So sweet And it was their actions, not the government. We've all been f'ed by the govt though, amirite??
June 21, 20223 yr Author 8 minutes ago, TEW said: You have no argument that they violated the constitution. No where in the constitution does it require anything in regards to formal proceedings. Quote Article II section 2 of the Constitution states that the Presidents "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..." U.S. Const. art. 2 § 2, cl. 2.
June 21, 20223 yr Author 7 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: The liberal media panicked when Bidens ratings were headed south so they tried to make this a wedge issue. Oh yeah, Biden and the Democrats made this a wedge issue
June 21, 20223 yr Author 1 minute ago, TEW said: And there was no consent. So you have no point. Consent is obtained through voting. Mitch clearly obstructed the mechanism for obtaining advice and consent.
June 21, 20223 yr Just now, EaglesRocker97 said: Consent is obtained through voting. Mitch clearly obstructed the mechanism for obtaining advice and consent. Please show me where in the constitution it says consent is obtained by voting.
June 21, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Oh yeah, Biden and the Democrats made this a wedge issue Oh yeah totally it was just magically leaked when the Dems were politically vulnerable. Sorry you cant kill unborn babies as easily, that sucks.
June 21, 20223 yr Author 2 minutes ago, TEW said: Please show me where in the constitution it says consent is obtained by voting. The Constitution does not specify how it is obtained, but the Senate instituted a process by which it is obtained through a process of holding a confirmation hearing and voting. If they wanted to, they could change the nomination process, but they didn't. Mitch broke the rules.
June 21, 20223 yr Author 1 minute ago, Mike31mt said: Oh yeah totally it was just magically leaked when the Dems were politically vulnerable. Sorry you cant kill unborn babies as easily, that sucks. This was manufactured as a wedge issue over the course of several decades by the Republican Party. Sorry you have amnesia.
June 21, 20223 yr 30 minutes ago, Kz! said: Yes, the "consequences" in this instance being two infants being allowed to live and the writer lamenting that fact. Sure, nothing ghoulish about that. It literally just lays out what happened when this woman was unable to have an abortion. If you see it as a good thing, since she has two babies, then okay, that's a legitimate position. Or, if you see it as a bad thing that the state made this decision for her, then that's also legit. Instead, you went straight to LIbeRL MEdiA bAAD! because you're retarded.
June 21, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: This was manufactured as a wedge issue over the course of several decades by the Republican Party. Sorry you have amnesia. The GOP didnt manufacture ethics or humanity, which is where the resistance to killing unborn babies comes from Again sorry the supreme court rendered an indefensible decision that was entirely political. Sorry you cant do your eugenics thing, though, Margaret
June 21, 20223 yr Author 3 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: The GOP didnt manufacture ethics or humanity Ethics are at least somewhat subjective. The rest of the modern, industrialized world largely recognizes the right to abortion. These are your personal ethics based on religious dogma. Religious views should not be the basis of law.
Create an account or sign in to comment