‘How will we survive?’

Which doesn't mean jack s***. Doesn't matter what some bipartisan commission has to say.

 

In all fairness, things were going horribly wrong before McConnell's dirty tricks. Citizens United, total disaster. SCOTUS clearly doesn't have a smart way to figure things out.

After Trump and Greene, republicans are recused from invoking decorum for at least 20 years.

 

Not how it works... but I think this discussion might be way over your head. So... don't bother.

 

Since when do SC justices get appointed without confirmation by the Senate?

 

There was a time in this country when left and right weren't curse words and their differences were not so far apart. Conservatives were fiscal conservatives and often social liberals. Liberals were more involved with social programs but weren't bat **** about financing their programs. Both sides could bend and sift and make decisions that would be good for the country. We're in trouble today.

 

"Living being".

The fact that you use this as an euphemism is very revealing. You are trying to insinuate that abortion kills a human being. But you know that it doesn't. So you go about it in a roundabout way using "living being" as an euphemism.

Anybody who defends something they REALLY believe in, as opposed as something they are just TOLD to believe in, doesn't use euphemisms the way you do.

And, again, fact is that Republican ideology has absolutely ZERO concern for human life. As proven by the many examples I gave in which you have defended policies that kill people.

 

I agree. I also remember going to high school with two guns in my rear window gun rack. We would hunt in the morning and go to school. Wasn't a big deal.
And not that long ago either. 1978.

 

What you quoted applies to you too, I'm afraid. It's nothing personal. But the discussion you are (unsuccessfully) trying to understand is between progressives. And we on the left can communicate amongst ourselves without needing or expecting strawman arguments. That is way over the heads of most on the right. So don't strain your neurons too much trying to understand how serious people communicate. You won't succeed....

 

Hate to spoil your little power trip but just because you don't think a baby isn't a living human, doesn't mean calling a baby a living being is a euphemism. It just means you are clueless about the stages of life a fertilized egg grows too.

You haven't proven anything (as per usual). You just made up your own claim.
You think anyone who believes in the second amendment as written has zero concern for human life so your statement has no value.
You will ignore actual events of the left rioting, looting, and actually killing Americans.
You will ignore the fact that more black babies are aborted than born.
You will ignore the markets for babies body parts.
But think if someone believes in gun rights they are the ones with zero concern for human life?
Just wow

 

So you can't support your post about how SC justices getting appointed without confirmation by the Senate so you have to turn to personal attacks.
Says everything I actually already knew about you.

So while you make up fake claims then run when cornered, the adults in the room will continue with the conversation.

 

This discussion is not about what I think about abortion. It's about what I think about the Supreme Court possibly overturning Roe v Wade. The poster in the discussion you jumped in is talking about "living being". He refused to say "human life", and I am pointing out why he did that.

You have this nasty habit of jumping into discussions without first bothering to find out what they are about. I think you should try to control that urge.

 

QUOTE where I said that SC justices can get appointed without confirmation by the Senate, or RETRACT!!!

 

1. This is a public board. If you are afraid of criticism maybe you should find another source. I hear Facebook and Twitter will ban anyone who might oppose you. Try those.

2. I read the entire thread so you can stop with the fake excuses about butting in.

3. My post was about the following conversation

Which has nothing to do with the SCOTUS overturning Roe vs Wade. Its you redefining other peoples post to suit your own theories.
Then somehow trying to make a difference between a human life and a living being. (Which are the same by the way)
Any other excuses you want to throw out there to deflect from the conversation?

 

You don't even remember your own post?

 

Yes I remember those days too.

 

It is not a complete human being, so I do not call it that.

Are you claiming it is not living? After around six weeks, it has a heart beat. At twenty weeks, it feels pain.

I believe that if you are willing to kill a living being, then must be willing to acknowledge exactly what you are doing.

 

Your point about "forcing women to carry a pregnancy against their will" is binary thinking! If you were honest you would agree that you too want to force "women to carry a pregnancy against their will," it's simply a disagreement with how long you want to do the forcing.

 

First of all, it's not a "public" board. It's privately owned by somebody who is paying for domain hosting, a domain name and a BB service, and who can kick our asses out of it any time they damn well please for whatever reason, or for no reason.

And they are gracious enough to spend their money and time to allow you to post whatever crap is on your mind, even if you don't know what you're talking about. But if you do that as a response to MY post, bear in mind that you WILL be called out.

 

Yes he is....

 

So you're talking about recess appointments? THAT'S what you expected me to explain to you? I don't have the time or interest or inclination to explain the Constitution to you. But they are NOT permanent appointments. However the Senate would not DARE not confirm justices that are already sitting on the bench and are leading it towards judicial independence.

And this is what I mean when I say that why that is would be go way above the head of people on the right.

 

You mean blustered at and complained about because you got nothing.

 

No it's not. Sorry you don't get it, but I don't know if I can explain it to a right-winger whose mental mindset is "wired" in a binary pattern. There are many gray areas. Such as forcing her for religious reasons, forcing her for political reasons (which is what Republicans do, given that concern for human life is not their agenda), or forcing her because the right to life of another human life needs to be considered... And many other nuances. It only becomes binary when the right wing takes over and uses all-powerful Government to force her to carry a pregnancy against her will.

So no... definitely NOT binary. But I know you don't have the mind-frame to understand such nuances. It's not your fault. It's just how right-wingers are "wired".

 

Sorry, but your statement that "forcing women to carry a pregnancy against their will" is still binary thinking. it's either one or zero. And giving reasons for "forcing women to carry a pregnancy against their will" depending on the reasons for the forcing have nothing to do with nuanced thinking, it's simply a case of my-reasons-good-yours-bad.

The truth is, you want to force women to carry a pregnancy against their will, but if it's for reasons you like, it's good.

 

Before RvW abortion was possible at a State level, some allowed it and some didn't. RvW was the Federal Govt forcing acceptance of it as federal law taken out of the tates responsibility.

We been at each others throats since.

 

My statement could be interpreted as binary or not. But reality is not binary. So a right-winger will invariably interpret it as binary, while a progressive person will interpret it as corresponding to reality. My second attempt was to explain to you why real life is not binary. But it failed to do so because a right-winger's mind is not wired to interpret statements in terms of reality. So I have learned to not even try.

Consider the phrase: "Eliminating Roe v Wade would force women to carry a pregnancy against her will."

Right wingers can come up with all sorts of binary strawman arguments. Like the strawman you came up with. Or they can say "well... why would that force a woman who WANTS to carry the pregnancy to term" (see the binary "women" vs "all women"?). Or another could be "they are eliminating it, just making it impossible for women to have abortions". So the strawman argument binary-thinkers can come up with is infinite. I've learned to just not waste my time on them.

I know strawman arguments the one you came up with and those are your only resource. So... good luck with them....