Liberal Forum

maineman » 13 Apr 2024, 1:43 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 1:43 pm

Zits:

Are you really this ignorant?

"YES, if they're white republican judges presiding over the determination of the constitutionality of a law, I have full confidence that I will agree with their decision, and so would my wife. They determine whether a law presented to them by the state or federal legislature is constitutional or not!"

your words.

Here are the facts:  The Arizona Supreme Court HAS ALREADY DECIDED ON THIS ISSUE and, when confronted with the 1864 law and the 2022 law, THEY  -  the white republican judges whom you have full confidence that you will AND DO support - ruled that the 1864 Law from the Civil War era Arizona territory, written without any input from any woman, took precedence.  You have already stated that YOU SUPPORT THAT!

And are you really going to be SO thick as to fail to address my argument about supporting our fellow citizens with the lame *** statement that your wife doesn't have any sisters in Arizona?

Mad enough to spit nails, aren't you?   
How is it that your listed "facts" don't include the one where the AZ Republican voted to approve the 15 week legality of abortion, and the AZ Supreme Court stayed any enforcement of their ban to allow for any challenges?  And now, all that the voters of AZ need to do is to get the required signatures needed to qualify for a constitutional amendment by July 3rd to get it on the ballot in November, and since they already have over a hundred thousand more signatures than are needed, you're arguing a moot point, dumbbell!

Apparently, where I'm perfectly willing to allow the wheels of justice and democracy to play out, you prefer stamping your feet and holding your breath till you turn blue, thinking that such childish antics will help in some way.  So calm down before you start punching walls, OK?  Your frustration is quite entertaining, however, I'll hand you that!    

Arizona Right to Abortion Initiative (2024)
The Arizona Right to Abortion Initiative may appear on the ballot in Arizona as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024.This ballot initiative would establish the fundamental right to abortion that the state of Arizona may not interfere with before the point of fetal viability (defined as the point of pregnancy when there is significant chance of the survival of the fetus outside of the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures) unless justified by a compelling state interest (defined as a law or regulation enacted for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of the individual seeking abortion care that does not infringe on that individual's autonomous decision making).
 The Arizona Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the abortion ban for 14 days to allow legal challenges to the ruling.

For a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment to qualify for the November 5, 2024, ballot in Arizona, at least 383,923 valid signatures need to be submitted to the secretary of state by July 3, 2024. This is equal to 5 percent of votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. If the secretary of state certifies that enough valid signatures were submitted, the initiative is put on the next general election ballot. On April 2, 2024, the Arizona for Abortion Access campaign announced that it collected at least 506,892 petition signatures, and would continue to collect signatures until election day.[3]

 
 

Zeets2 » 13 Apr 2024, 2:07 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 2:07 pm

Mad enough to spit nails, aren't you?   
How is it that your listed "facts" don't include the one where the AZ Republican voted to approve the 15 week legality of abortion, and the AZ Supreme Court stayed any enforcement of their ban to allow for any challenges?  And now, all that the voters of AZ need to do is to get the required signatures needed to qualify for a constitutional amendment by July 3rd to get it on the ballot in November, and since they already have over a hundred thousand more signatures than are needed, you're arguing a moot point, dumbbell!

Apparently, where I'm perfectly willing to allow the wheels of justice and democracy to play out, you prefer stamping your feet and holding your breath till you turn blue, thinking that such childish antics will help in some way.  So calm down before you start punching walls, OK?  Your frustration is quite entertaining, however, I'll hand you that!  

you're on record supporting the ruling of the AZ Supreme Court.

That says it all.  

Do you make your wife wear a corset and walk two paces behind you?

Abortion is murder

maineman » 13 Apr 2024, 2:13 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 2:13 pm

you're on record supporting the ruling of the AZ Supreme Court.

That says it all.  

Do you make your wife wear a corset and walk two paces behind you?

Yeah. I follow the law, and when I'm strongly opposed to an existing one, I'll work to change it.

And you're on record supporting mob rule, apparently.
Do you support BLM and Antifa burning down liberal cities?  If you choose to demand an answer to stupid questions, I surely can too!

THAT is what "says it all".  

Are we clear?

 

Zeets2 » 13 Apr 2024, 3:08 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 3:08 pm

Yeah. I follow the law, and when I'm strongly opposed to an existing one, I'll work to change it.

And you're on record supporting mob rule, apparently.
Do you support BLM and Antifa burning down liberal cities?  If you choose to demand an answer to stupid questions, I surely can too!

THAT is what "says it all".  

Are we clear?

I have never ever voiced ONE WORD of support for BLM or Antifa.

You're OK with white judges forcing women in Arizona to obey a law from 1864.


there's that.

maineman » 13 Apr 2024, 3:31 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 3:31 pm

I have never ever voiced ONE WORD of support for BLM or Antifa.

You're OK with white judges forcing women in Arizona to obey a law from 1864.

there's that.

Nor have I EVER claimed I wanted my wife to wear a corset and walk two paces behind me as YOU suggested!
But BLM and Antifa had the full support of the Democrats in power, didn't they? Even to the point where your idiot VP helped to bail them out of jail, didn't she?
So how can YOU support the criminal behavior of Democrats when they do?
See the difference? 
I support FOLLOWING THE LAW!
YOU support the party who bails criminals out of jail and stands by while they riot, attack cops, and burn down businesses FOR MONTHS!

And YES, I'm OK with A JUDGE OF ANY COLOR requiring obedience to a law that was legally passed!  WHY THE **** DON'T YOU, and why do you find it vital to bring race into it, scumbag?  Did I EVER mention anyone's race who belonged to BLM or Antifa?

Why do you have such a hard time comprehending the fact that I support the law, no matter how many times I confirm it to you?
Are you really that dim-witted, or just admitting you're a confirmed anarchist?
I'll bet you're just DYING to see the protesters burn down the AZ capitol because of this, aren't you?
Don't bother to deny it, we all know you'd be cheering as you watch it happen on the news with your bowl of popcorn!
 
 

maineman » 13 Apr 2024, 3:31 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 3:31 pm

I have never ever voiced ONE WORD of support for BLM or Antifa.

You're OK with white judges forcing women in Arizona to obey a law from 1864.

there's that.

You support jugs you support BLM
 

Zeets2 » 13 Apr 2024, 4:16 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 4:16 pm

Nor have I EVER claimed I wanted my wife to wear a corset and walk two paces behind me as YOU suggested!
But BLM and Antifa had the full support of the Democrats in power, didn't they? Even to the point where your idiot VP helped to bail them out of jail, didn't she?
So how can YOU support the criminal behavior of Democrats when they do?
See the difference? 
I support FOLLOWING THE LAW!
YOU support the party who bails criminals out of jail and stands by while they riot, attack cops, and burn down businesses FOR MONTHS!

And YES, I'm OK with A JUDGE OF ANY COLOR requiring obedience to a law that was legally passed!  WHY THE **** DON'T YOU, and why do you find it vital to bring race into it, scumbag?  Did I EVER mention anyone's race who belonged to BLM or Antifa?

Why do you have such a hard time comprehending the fact that I support the law, no matter how many times I confirm it to you?
Are you really that dim-witted, or just admitting you're a confirmed anarchist?
I'll bet you're just DYING to see the protesters burn down the AZ capitol because of this, aren't you?
Don't bother to deny it, we all know you'd be cheering as you watch it happen on the news with your bowl of popcorn!

I have a problem with white republican judges deciding that an 1864 law written when Arizona was a territory and women did not have the right to vote takes priority over a bipartisan law enacted by the Arizona legislature in 2022.

I am not at all surprised that you don't.
 

maineman » 13 Apr 2024, 4:30 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 4:30 pm

I have a problem with white republican judges deciding that an 1864 law written when Arizona was a territory and women did not have the right to vote takes priority over a bipartisan law enacted by the Arizona legislature in 2022.

I am not at all surprised that you don't.

Well then, why not just revoke the power of the US judiciary all together and allow the legislators to decide for themselves what's constitutional and what's not?
What's left unsaid is your continued insistence in including the fact that they were WHITE judges deciding the constitutionality of the law, which must indicate that you believe their race makes them more likely to render a biased decision, isn't that true?

Did it ever cross your tiny brain that the decision of those WHITE judges also prevented blacks from murdering their babies? 
It would seem to me that if they were as racist as you are, they would have APPROVED of letting blacks kill as many babies as they wanted, no?
 
You get more disgusting with every response you add!
 

Zeets2 » 13 Apr 2024, 5:00 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 5:00 pm

Well then, why not just revoke the power of the US judiciary all together and allow the legislators to decide for themselves what's constitutional and what's not?
What's left unsaid is your continued insistence in including the fact that they were WHITE judges deciding the constitutionality of the law, which must indicate that you believe their race makes them more likely to render a biased decision, isn't that true?

Did it ever cross your tiny brain that the decision of those WHITE judges also prevented blacks from murdering their babies? 
It would seem to me that if they were as racist as you are, they would have APPROVED of letting blacks kill as many babies as they wanted, no?
 
You get more disgusting with every response you add!

that's a stretch.  You support the Judges tossing out the bipartisan abortion bill of 2022 - passed by the Arizona legislature with the support of not only both parties, but both genders - in favor of an 1864 bill passed when Arizona was not a state and when women had no say.    How can you do that with a straight face?

maineman » 13 Apr 2024, 5:09 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 5:09 pm

that's a stretch.  You support the Judges tossing out the bipartisan abortion bill of 2022 - passed by the Arizona legislature with the support of not only both parties, but both genders - in favor of an 1864 bill passed when Arizona was not a state and when women had no say.    How can you do that with a straight face?

why are you so dead set on the slaughterhouses and and their psychopathic MDs slaughtering babies? does it make you feel good in the fake satanic name of autonomy?

And it’s not just you, it’s THE pillar of the entire Democrat party. Baby murder, selling baby parts for @vaccine@ experiments where babies must die so others can live.
 

Tempest62 » 13 Apr 2024, 5:21 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 5:21 pm

why are you so dead set on the slaughterhouses and and their psychopathic MDs slaughtering babies? does it make you feel good in the fake satanic name of autonomy?

And it’s not just you, it’s THE pillar of the entire Democrat party. Baby murder, selling baby parts for @vaccine@ experiments where babies must die so others can live.

your hype is **** weak.  

maineman » 13 Apr 2024, 6:44 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 6:44 pm

your hype is **** weak.

What did I say that is

1. weak
2. wrong

Tempest62 » 13 Apr 2024, 6:51 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 6:51 pm

What did I say that is

1. weak
2. wrong

 "the slaughterhouses and and[sic] their psychopathic MDs slaughtering babies? does it make you feel good in the fake satanic name of autonomy?"

over-the -top Q-Anon weird.

 

maineman » 13 Apr 2024, 5:09 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 5:09 pm

that's a stretch.  You support the Judges tossing out the bipartisan abortion bill of 2022 - passed by the Arizona legislature with the support of not only both parties, but both genders - in favor of an 1864 bill passed when Arizona was not a state and when women had no say.    How can you do that with a straight face?

No, I support the legality of the decision they made.  There's a difference.  
And if and when the old statute is repealed and a new abortion law is put in it's place, I'll support that too!
No judge is telling AZ voters that they can't vote for a new abortion law.  But you want it done by mob rule rather than the constitutionally required process.
And that new law will in all likelihood be on the ballot in AZ in November.

Sounds like your eager to see them riot, aren't you?
 

maineman » 13 Apr 2024, 7:31 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2024, 7:31 pm

 "the slaughterhouses and and[sic] their psychopathic MDs slaughtering babies? does it make you feel good in the fake satanic name of autonomy?"

over-the -top Q-Anon weird.

at what week should abortions not be performed?

BuckNaked » 14 Apr 2024, 8:26 am » wrote: ↑

14 Apr 2024, 8:26 am

at what week should abortions not be performed?

That would depend on the viability of the fetus and the medical condition of the mother.  A normal fetus and a healthy mother?  I would personally be comfortable with a "no third-trimester" rule, but that's just me.  I am a guy.  I don't have a dog in this fight.  These are decisions that women need to be able to make for themselves, and they are certainly not decisions that a group of old white all-republican men should make relying upon a law from the Civil War, IMHO.