Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 24 Jun 2022, 1:38 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 1:38 pm

Huey » 24 Jun 2022, 1:36 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 1:36 pm

Now you are mixing constitutional opinions with personal opinions.  Pick which one you want to discuss.

Tiny,

They just REVERSED a SCOTUS precedent which had stood for 50 years. 

**** idiot.
 

 

And I have yet to post my personal opinion of it.  

But along the lines of your new argument they SCOTUS in 1973 reversed damn near TWO HUNDRED years of tradition and precedent.  

 

Huey » 24 Jun 2022, 1:41 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 1:41 pm

And I have yet to post my personal opinion of it.  

But along the lines of your new argument they SCOTUS in 1973 reversed damn near TWO HUNDRED years of tradition and precedent.

No, InstantRecall.

It is not new.

Blackvegetable » 24 Jun 2022, 1:42 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 1:42 pm

Huey » 24 Jun 2022, 1:41 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 1:41 pm

And I have yet to post my personal opinion of it.  

But along the lines of your new argument they SCOTUS in 1973 reversed damn near TWO HUNDRED years of tradition and precedent.

No, InstantRecall.

It is not new.

 

And I have yet to post my personal opinion of it.  

But along the lines of your new argument they SCOTUS in 1973 reversed damn near TWO HUNDRED years of tradition and precedent.

Huey » 24 Jun 2022, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 1:45 pm

And I have yet to post my personal opinion of it.  

But along the lines of your new argument they SCOTUS in 1973 reversed damn near TWO HUNDRED years of tradition and precedent.

Until you do, you should stop lying about mine.

Blackvegetable » 24 Jun 2022, 1:47 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 1:47 pm

Huey » 24 Jun 2022, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 1:45 pm

And I have yet to post my personal opinion of it.  

But along the lines of your new argument they SCOTUS in 1973 reversed damn near TWO HUNDRED years of tradition and precedent.

Until you do, you should stop lying about mine.

 

And I have yet to post my personal opinion of it.  

But along the lines of your new argument they SCOTUS in 1973 reversed damn near TWO HUNDRED years of tradition and precedent.

I am not lying about yours.

My personal opinion is along the lines of Bill Clinton.  It should be safe, legal and rare.  You definitely don't support that.  I believe in a time frame.  Unlike you I don't believe a women should have the choice right up to delivery. I would never vote for a ban at the state level.  

So you can ditch your party line crap. 

Huey » 24 Jun 2022, 1:52 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 1:52 pm

And I have yet to post my personal opinion of it.  

But along the lines of your new argument they SCOTUS in 1973 reversed damn near TWO HUNDRED years of tradition and precedent.

I am not lying about yours.

My personal opinion is along the lines of Bill Clinton.  It should be safe, legal and rare.  You definitely don't support that.  I believe in a time frame.  Unlike you I don't believe a women should have the choice right up to delivery. I would never vote for a ban at the state level. 

So you can ditch your party line crap.

If not your opinion, what have you been posting, ******* ****?


 

sootedupCyndi » 24 Jun 2022, 1:07 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 1:07 pm

It's one I am so sick of hearing about.. My eyes glaze over!

Agreed. It would not be so bad if both sides were not so foaming-at-the-mouth, hair on fire, world is ending about the topic. Unlike them, I tune out after hearing so much fiery, passionate rhetoric. 

Blackvegetable » 24 Jun 2022, 1:47 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 1:47 pm

Huey » 24 Jun 2022, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 1:45 pm

And I have yet to post my personal opinion of it.  

But along the lines of your new argument they SCOTUS in 1973 reversed damn near TWO HUNDRED years of tradition and precedent.

Until you do, you should stop lying about mine.

 

 

Blackvegetable » 25 May 2022, 1:41 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2022, 1:41 pm

Huey » 25 May 2022, 1:23 pm » wrote: ↑

25 May 2022, 1:23 pm

Yes, I will acknowledge this but I have to ask.

Is your definition of "once" meaning you will never answer it again and no one can bring it up again?  Or is your definition of once the same as when you asked me that question about combat and me my family, I answered telling you I would not discuss it again, yet for years you have continued bring it up?

When you answer the question I will honor the traditional definition of once.  Not the blackvegetable definition of once.

No...you don't. 

Remember your rule.

As a matter of Principle, the idea that The State can force women to bear children is fundamentally objectionable.

Once you accept that fact, you are left with leaving any decision relating to her pregnancy to the woman so afflicted.

So the direct answer to where you are going is "Yes, any time."

Acknowledge that my unambiguous stand is clear to you.


Don't offer me your talking points. I don't care.

 

So the direct answer to where you are going is "Yes, any time."

Those are your words. 

Blackvegetable » 24 Jun 2022, 1:54 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 1:54 pm

Huey » 24 Jun 2022, 1:52 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 1:52 pm

And I have yet to post my personal opinion of it.  

But along the lines of your new argument they SCOTUS in 1973 reversed damn near TWO HUNDRED years of tradition and precedent.

I am not lying about yours.

My personal opinion is along the lines of Bill Clinton.  It should be safe, legal and rare.  You definitely don't support that.  I believe in a time frame.  Unlike you I don't believe a women should have the choice right up to delivery. I would never vote for a ban at the state level.  

So you can ditch your party line crap.

If not your opinion, what have you been posting, ******* ****?


 

 

Meltdown Mary, until you calm down, pound sand on questions.  

Neo » 24 Jun 2022, 9:47 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 9:47 am

Let's see if they keep their all rioters like Babbitt should be shot prerogative.

And you can sell 'pre-rusted' coat hangers to desparate girls!      
We know you want to profit from it!      
 

Alexia » 24 Jun 2022, 12:32 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 12:32 pm

yea, tell that to all the children murdered by GUN USERS

You're not hear for an open honest discussion. You're here to say "guns bad" and "abortion good".  

Have a nice day.

Blackvegetable » 24 Jun 2022, 1:32 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 1:32 pm

Again, being a **** sockpuppet, you evade the point.

This is a medical matter involving the only direct stakeholder and the advisor of her choice.

It is not a matter in which the State holds an interest. It lacks standing.

Your constitutional wanking is a pretext to restrict a woman's choice.

It's simply your erroneous opinion that the State has no interest because you simply don't believe it's a life that's being killed.  For those who do, it's CERTAINLY a duty of all legislators who believe likewise that they are protecting the lives of innocents in the womb, in which they DO have standing.  And it's ONLY a restriction on those women who CHOOSE to have unprotected sex because they have too cavalier an attitude regarding that life, most of which I believe is because they know the government will pay for their carelessness.  And that's simply not acceptable and the current Supreme Court agreed by a vote of 6-3.

Now will come the likely screeching for Democrats to call to pack the court with up to 5 more justices (that a demented Alzheimer's patient will choose) in order to overwhelm the current majority decision.  The problem for Dems doing that would be that such confirmation hearings for that many will take longer than the remaining 6 months before the new Republican majority in Congress will be seated.  And at that time, they can refuse to affirm ANY of the new liberal picks that Biden would make, or even choose to pack it further in 2025, giving Trump the second opportunity to add 3 or 4 more after he or another Republican wins takes the presidency back.  It probably won't happen that way, but it sure would be fun watching the fur fly if Trump were to have appointed 6 or more of his own conservative picks!


 

nuckinfutz » 24 Jun 2022, 2:01 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 2:01 pm

And you can sell 'pre-rusted' coat hangers to desparate girls!      
We know you want to profit from it!    

There...now your leftist friends still think yer groovy.  

Zeets2 » 24 Jun 2022, 2:09 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 2:09 pm

It's simply your erroneous opinion that the State has no interest because you simply don't believe it's a life that's being killed.  For those who do, it's CERTAINLY a duty of all legislators who believe likewise that they are protecting the lives of innocents in the womb, in which they DO have standing.  And it's ONLY a restriction on those women who CHOOSE to have unprotected sex because they have too cavalier an attitude regarding that life, most of which I believe is because they know the government will pay for their carelessness.  And that's simply not acceptable and the current Supreme Court agreed by a vote of 6-3.

Now will come the likely screeching for Democrats to call to pack the court with up to 5 more justices (that a demented Alzheimer's patient will choose) in order to overwhelm the current majority decision.  The problem for Dems doing that would be that such confirmation hearings for that many will take longer than the remaining 6 months before the new Republican majority in Congress will be seated.  And at that time, they can refuse to affirm ANY of the new liberal picks that Biden would make, or even choose to pack it further in 2025, giving Trump the second opportunity to add 3 or 4 more after he or another Republican wins takes the presidency back.  It probably won't happen that way, but it sure would be fun watching the fur fly if Trump were to have appointed 6 or more of his own conservative picks!

That's quite enough 

Zeets2 » 24 Jun 2022, 2:09 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 2:09 pm

It's simply your erroneous opinion that the State has no interest because you simply don't believe it's a life that's being killed.  For those who do, it's CERTAINLY a duty of all legislators who believe likewise that they are protecting the lives of innocents in the womb, in which they DO have standing.  And it's ONLY a restriction on those women who CHOOSE to have unprotected sex because they have too cavalier an attitude regarding that life, most of which I believe is because they know the government will pay for their carelessness.  And that's simply not acceptable and the current Supreme Court agreed by a vote of 6-3.

Now will come the likely screeching for Democrats to call to pack the court with up to 5 more justices (that a demented Alzheimer's patient will choose) in order to overwhelm the current majority decision.  The problem for Dems doing that would be that such confirmation hearings for that many will take longer than the remaining 6 months before the new Republican majority in Congress will be seated.  And at that time, they can refuse to affirm ANY of the new liberal picks that Biden would make, or even choose to pack it further in 2025, giving Trump the second opportunity to add 3 or 4 more after he or another Republican wins takes the presidency back.  It probably won't happen that way, but it sure would be fun watching the fur fly if Trump were to have appointed 6 or more of his own conservative picks!

Great post Zeets...but Bv runs from logic.  I asked him if he was for or against men competing in women's sports. He avoided my question like the coward that he is.  He's a dark runner.

roadkill » 24 Jun 2022, 2:11 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 2:11 pm

There...now your leftist friends still think yer groovy.

I'm groovy, and yer not!    
All yer friends are Trumplicans and Putinistas!      

 
 

razoo » 24 Jun 2022, 2:17 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 2:17 pm

The courts should have no jurisdiction over women's rights to choose. The matter should be a voters choice backed with a nation wide vote. No Court or legislative body should have the authority to over turn.

 

The country doesn't work that way.  You may get that at the state level. 

Huey » 24 Jun 2022, 2:00 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 2:00 pm

Meltdown Mary, until you calm down, pound sand on questions.

Tiny,

Sometimes a concussive face palm is not enough.


 

Blackvegetable » 24 Jun 2022, 2:22 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 2:22 pm

Huey » 24 Jun 2022, 2:00 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 2:00 pm

Meltdown Mary, until you calm down, pound sand on questions.

Tiny,

Sometimes a concussive face palm is not enough.


 

 

I'm good.  Although after dealing with you it is my forehead that should be sore from the face palms due to your uninformed posts.  

Huey » 24 Jun 2022, 2:20 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2022, 2:20 pm

The country doesn't work that way.  You may get that at the state level.

Medical decisions are not for courts, elected bodies or the unwashed to make.