Well when your kids are burning down the trailer park and mine are running BOD's we can see who was right.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
ROE V WADE ……….
- Thread starter 7.62willdo
- Start date
Supreme Court chief justice directs marshal to investigate leak, calls out 'egregious breach of ... trust'
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/su...tice-marshal-investigate-leak-breach-of-trust
I bet it’s one of the liberal justices clerks or secretaries. The court is clear that this isn’t a final decision on the matter and just a circulated opinion that is common when making decisions.
From the article:
"Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work. Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case," the court said
This is purely political hit job to try and influence the court and is destructive to the way our courts and democracy works.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/su...tice-marshal-investigate-leak-breach-of-trust
I bet it’s one of the liberal justices clerks or secretaries. The court is clear that this isn’t a final decision on the matter and just a circulated opinion that is common when making decisions.
From the article:
"Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work. Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case," the court said
This is purely political hit job to try and influence the court and is destructive to the way our courts and democracy works.
Having the 5 year shot is certainly a solution that seems on the surface a logical solution. It'd be voluntary - you want welfare you have to have the shot. This logic itself is also faulty as it's not that much different than forcing somebody to have the COVID jab because that's what Xiden was arguing somewhat...government contractors taking money from Gov so Gov can set rules of what "healthcare" they have to have. VERY complicated issue to be sure.
However, forced sterilization is a bit much (in my opinion) because somebody could actually get off of welfare and then what? They'd never be able to have children. Hell, maybe they were raised in welfare and are trying to get off of it (and let's suppose they did), then they'd be punished for parent(s) inability to provide.
Just like abortion is permanent for the poor little human who's going to pay the ultimate price for parent(s) stupidity. Ultimately though, even with the 5 year birth control - it needs to work on men and women becauase it does take two to tango. How many men have impregnated multiple women - that's also a problem.
Sadly, the surefire way to being a 3rd world country is popping out children who have no hope, no education, no job, no future, and no support of the parents.
There is only one , but don't worry . You will get to debate your argument with him in just time .
I think you should study history, in more detail. Nazis were extreme right-wing nationalists. I'm not sure what your values are, but we're getting there.
You're a fucking pussy. Why stop there? If your argument is valid then what's the difference between a 25 week old, preborn, baby and a child or an adult? What, in your sole opinion, makes someone human (because actual scientific truth must not enter into your calculations)? If you are willing to murder babies for utopia, why not murder the adults that don't contribute enough? Why not those who aren't up to snuff? Your argument is bogus and immoral, period. Real Margaret Sanger, Nazi shit.
You are NOT a fucking LIBERTARIAN!!! You are a complete progressive/socialist who thinks it's ok to murder human beings if it makes a better society for you to live in, PERIOD! There could not be a less Libertarian proposition than abortion. It completely denies that there is another human life involved, and there absolutely IS, period.
An actual libertarian would say that your rights end where the next PERSON'S begin, and that includes taking their life for convenience or your misguided utopianism of murdering our way to a better society, along with all the leftists who deny that a preborn baby is a human being with a unique set of DNA.
But, aside from these fakers and charlatans, you assume too much that pro-abortionist leftists don't have religion.
After Chanting All Night, Crowd Of Worshippers Still Can't Get Moloch To Answer Them
WASHINGTON, D.C.—After gathering at the steps of the Supreme Court and chanting all through the night in support of abortion, a crowd of worshippers are still having a hard time getting their pagan god Moloch to hear them.
babylonbee.com
It's one of 3 jurists offices (by direction from jurist?) that released this: In order of likelihood: Brown, Sotomayor, Kagen. Though I doubt it's Kagen since she seems to follow (for the most part) the traditions of The Court.
So in your own words, religion is bad, and people are moving away from it, because it’s bad, right? I agree, people are becoming less religious. So according to your argument then, our world should be more peaceful, more harmonious, than it’s ever been, yes? Less religion, more peace. Yet, we spend a big chunk of our time in the pit talking about how our society is falling apart. Can you counter the obvious contradiction in your thinking? Why haven’t we all converted ourselves to pure energy yet?
I hate to say it, but that sounds a bit like an argument a progressive would make, based not on what you can see, but on what you feel.
Religion is certainly a power structure, and any power structure can be abused. Look at the elegance of the government designed by our founding fathers, and how sick and depraved it has become. It’s not our government, its the people that fill and exploit it for personal gain. Religion is the same, so why not see it the same?
To answer your scenario questions:
1. Dying mom-mom’s choice. It’s an awful situation, but baby is actually a threat to mom, and defending your wife is defensible, even from a biblical standpoint (see forsaking all others). That being said, there are moms who would choose to deliver a baby at the cost of their own life. That’s fine too.
2. Rape-killing a baby because his daddy is a waste of oxygen does not make it okay. If your dad kills somebody in a DUI, should you be thrown in jail for it? Kill the rapist instead.
This draft has been around for awhile. It just happened to "leak" on the exact same day that 2000mules.com is released and shows to the public the election was very likely stolen.
As a grad student, I did not feel financially able to raise a kid. But, when my wife showed at the lab with a “So, you’re going to be a dad” book, “adapt improvise overcome” became more than a slogan I had read somewhere. Today, they’ll need to drive a fair piece to find a trailer park to burn.
My point is that new parents never/rarely feel prepared for their responsibilities, but they generally get it done regardless of their perception of the obstacles. If one were to impose a “financial responsibility self test” before becoming pregnant, few couples would self-qualify. And the few that did would be old(ish).
I think it was Robin Williams that said that old sperm creates kids that wear sweaters in the summer and sit on benches while watching other kids playing on the playground.
That is what your liberal professors would tell you.
Do you know what NAZI stands for? National Socialism
NAZI's were Communist Lite. They were just more competent and had better uniforms.
Roberts has announced a full investigation into which judge leaked this.
What may happen to the leaker pales compared to what will happen to the SCOTUS; maybe our entire court system (which is already becoming a joke).
The leak may be the end of the credibility, enforcement status and meaningful direction of SCOTUS.
Packed by Democrats with liberals who have an utter disdain for the Constitution of nine sitting judges who have zero trust or respect for each other.
I see what is occurring here as another nail in the coffin to our once great republic.
I have long failed to see how liberals can read into 2A that they need to regulate our explicit RKBA but can extract the "right" to abortion from the 14th.
I assume mostly nothing. I've dealt with your "real world" in ways you can only imagine.
The killing of a baby is never justified by the circumstances you have outlined above. Children are born into those circumstances even with the abortion option, now aren't they? Try as you might, the only way you can justify this type of a killing is to make the subject of such, a non-human piece of garbage to be tossed out just like leftovers. If you can make a buck "recycling", then so much the better.
So much evil here.
You’re aware of the purpose of the 3/5ths rule right? It was so slave states would not be over represented based on population and maintain the status quo. It was a move against plantation owners. You sure you’re not a paid troll?
Right wing or left wing? Sanger who touted abortion was a staunch racist and believed in eugenics to control the population that she felt was undesirable. She was also a friend of the KKK, Democrats, Nazi's (still viewed as a hero by Clinton and many others in the Dem party and of course the Nazi's loved her).
"Or her promotion of the “American Baby Code,” in which she seeks to “protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.”
Also missing is Sanger’s fear of her racist views being exposed, as recorded in a 1939 letter to an ally: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”"
Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood on racism
Planned Parenthood is largely the reason why black babies are aborted in America three times more often than white babies, and Hispanic preborns are killed 11/2 times more often than whites.
www.washingtontimes.com
So basically it’d be a steep climb so just kill them instead. Got it.
If you look at Biden's head where his hair is thin you can still see the scars from the rusty coat hanger .....
It serves no real purpose. People can see the hypocrisy and how it was used to control and keep people ignorant for millennia.
The catholic church is a great example. Amas great swaths of wealth, was against its peasants learning to read. Only Priests can read and we need to do mass in Latin. Why do you think most of our known history from the time was written by Monks? Other than the ultra rich and some merchants, they were the only ones who could read and write. The printing press changed everything.
Societies were based around religion so if you wanted to be a sucsesful person you had to play along, even if you know it was bullshit. Its only until recently we don't have to pretend anymore.
We saw in the last 50 years how godly the church is as it hid and shuffled child molesters around until the damn finally broke. The richest institution on the planet yet there is still worldwide suffering and poverty. Cardinals live like kings. Almost none of that wealth goes to helping the people who are supposed to give their body and soul to the same church? Get fucking real.
Or we could talk about the Church of England which was created so the Kind could kick his current wife to the curb and marry/fuck the newer model. Use of the church to eliminate all enemies of the Head of state while keeping the peasants in line.
After the enlightenment there is no need for the Church or religion. People have the ability to think for themselves and understand natural law.
There are many things we do not and may not ever understand. We don't need religion to rationalize what we cannot rationalize or understand.
A whole lot of people in here want to dictate how other lives and want to dictate choices that do not effect them. How about y'all just mind your own fucking business and worry about your own fucked up selves. That should keep you more than busy enough.
If you believe in someones freedom of religion you should believe in their lack of religion. If they don't believe exactly what you believe they must be wrong anyway right? So how is it different to believe in something wrong or atheism?
No one wants to stop you from believing in whatever you want. They do want to stop you from using that religion and its morals to dictate to others how they should live.
Ever look at those " women " at abortion rallies . I don't how they can get pregnant in the first place, do they pick up used condoms or something ? Or are you guys banging them after your all liquored up ?
The way we're headed, and the pace, "ow my balls" will be the #1 show in about 20 years, not 500 like the movie depicted. Most of my feelings and thoughts I can't type on here, it'll be used against me at some point. Can't say them on the phone either. I'm not a terribly intellectual individual like most of y'alls. I don't want to negotiate, or debate, would rather just smash a problem like a bug on the bathroom floor, problem solved, problem staying solved. rinse and repeat. Can't do that though, people get upset.
Branden
Branden
Sanger did admire the Nazi's view on eugenics, but the Nazis were way, far, extreme, right-wing, hence their views on racial purity and Germans being the best example of that.Right wing or left wing? Sanger who touted abortion was a staunch racist and believed in eugenics to control the population that she felt was undesirable. She was also a friend of the KKK, Democrats, Nazi's (still viewed as a hero by Clinton and many others in the Dem party and of course the Nazi's loved her).
"Or her promotion of the “American Baby Code,” in which she seeks to “protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.”
Also missing is Sanger’s fear of her racist views being exposed, as recorded in a 1939 letter to an ally: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”"
Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood on racism
Planned Parenthood is largely the reason why black babies are aborted in America three times more often than white babies, and Hispanic preborns are killed 11/2 times more often than whites.
There's always the bottom level males, who have no game, good looks, or smarts, who will stick their dick in anything given the chance. The ugliest of female example of any human race, can always find someone to fuck them anywhere.
Branden
The political spectrum is more like a clock. People at 3 oclock are on the right....people at 9 o'clock are on the left. Nutters are at 6 o'clock....and they ain't right or left.
For example, killing everyone who does/doesn't/is/isn't (insert some thing here) is a "progressive" behavior.
Once, again, you need to study history in more detail. Yes, Nazis were national socialists, but they hated Marx and communism. I had conservative professors, by the way and I went to college in the 1980's, before revisionist history became prevalent. You don't know history, young man.
Nonetheless, Nazis were not progressives, or leftists. You are looking at history through the lens of modern politics. Don't do that.
Why not? If we are going to continue using Nazi's as some sort of example of something, that example by definition must be related to our current situation or it becomes a meaningless reference.
Nazi's were nationalists first, with a healthy dose of racism. The socialist part was that the government controlled everything.
You are a bit wrong on your conclusion.
The Romans had a stable society BECAUSE they had (for the times) a halfway decent religion that they mostly all agreed upon and morals from that religion guided and shaped society, helping form the principles of law and order and public behaviour.
You could read about all the whys and such in "Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius" by Niccolo Machiavelli.
It would be a good read to help you understand the fundamental role religion has, does and will always play in shaping and stabilizing human societies.
If you have a somewhat decent religion that your society gets it's morals from, you will have a somewhat decent society.
If you have a bad religion, then you get a bad society.
If you try to actually have no religion, you then wind up very quickly with the straight out law of the jungle and survival of the fittest which is why it's not done ever.
You'll never have no religion, religion is innate to humans, it has always existed throughout human history and guided societies.
The Atheists who claim to have no religion, when they get in power make a new religion out of worship of the state with almost all the same trappings and many of the same morals they claimed to avoid, right down to blind obedience.
The former Soviet Union and the current Chinese Communists are good examples of essentially making their own state worship / obedient humanist worship religion to try to supplant other religions so they didn't go into full on law of the jungle. And just like most religions they also eventually have a period of brutally suppressing any competing religions and eliminating the heretics.
However don't wax all romantic for Roman society!
It was horrific by today's standards but that is because people today in the west have the benefit of morals and society that the Christian religion shaped for over a thousand years. Even that changed much over time as the religion evolved, so did accepted morals & society. Modern Christians today, even most of the "devout" ones would probably not fare well in times 500 to 1000 years ago as the times / morals / society / religion was a lot more brutal/bad/horrific than most understand.
The same religious forces are at work today as the woke left wing SJW crowd is making a religion of their fringe beliefs that they are trying to force on everyone and science be damned, the truth is heresy and you will only think what they tell you to think or you are a heretic and must be destroyed, even if what you are saying is actual physical fact and easily proven science.
If you were a real libertarian, you’d want to know what the baby thought was best for him or her.
So you talk about religion as bad because it controls people and causes harm, to people, but you talk about killing people, and that’s not bad somehow???? Confused.
My father was one of seven kids, son of a poor uneducated coal miner. White trash by your standards I’m sure. He hitchhiked to college to get his teaching degree, then got his masters, Rank 1, EDs degree etc. He taught me most everything I knew that was worth anything, that was until I went to medical school. Now I’m an owner anesthesiologist in a group of partners that does about 60k+ cases per year. I’m sure it would have been better if my granny would have taken a morning after pill (were they available) like you and your lady friends elected to.
You honestly sound like exactly the kind of person who would have been a slave owner.
Nazism, socialism, and communism are all collectivist, completely opposite of the right wing where individual freedom and autonomy are highly prized.
Hitler was a failed liberal arts student (painter) who blamed all the country's problems on the rich. He supported gun control, universal healthcare, and said a segment of the population didn't really count as people, so it was legal to kill them.
Sounds exactly like a modern leftist.
Reproduction needs to be a free choice with no significant inducements to do as "The State" (whoever happens to control it) thinks is correct.
Any other path leads you very quickly into a dystopian nightmare, even the Chinese have realized that their attempts at government control of reproduction have left them with a very unstable country that is at serious risk of imploding.
What you need to do is the opposite of what "welfare" in this country has done.
You need to encourage stable families with 2 parents taking care of their children.
NOT using financial inducements to make it so if you are a single baby mama you get all the free stuff but the moment you let one of the men be a father to their children you get that up to what could be $100k of benefits cut off.
But again that was done on purpose to destroy the African American communities because the Democrats were afraid they were waking up and beginning to understand they could have their own political power.
And we wonder why we can't have simple debates when most of the people do not even understand the definitions of the subject.
I think the term Nazis was pretty well established by 1945.
Everybody knows who they were and what they did - right and wrong.
There will always be arguments about why.
Applying extra labels to them today makes no sense at all.
they need my taxes to kill babies but they have $150 million to spend on the midterms?
You have it entirely backwards. Actually it was the Nazis who openly admired the American Progressive movement, and Hitler lamented in early letters that he wished that Germany could be as Progressive as Alabama with their sterilization laws.
Why do you think the word "progressive" was eliminated from the American lexicon till Hillary Clinton brought it back? It was synonymous with Nazi from the late 1930s on.
The only element where these "Progressives" differ from their ideological brethren in Germany is their equal distain for "The Right Kind" of babies to be born. You see no push for more procreation of desirables, because for the left it's all a zero sum game, and the less people means the more natural resources for themselves. Doesn't matter how much this has been disproven, these are totally immoral mental midgets we are discussing here.
That's why Pelosi and Schumer are up in arms if they shut down the factory that prints money via a coat hanger there will be hell to pay.they need my taxes to kill babies but they have $150 million to spend on the midterms?
Exactly. The great lefty hero, FDR, actually praised Mussolini before WWII.
HIs "new deal" had Mussolini's actions as inspiration.
Those that can't teach, teach teachers.
lol.
I told that to my dad once, at the time he was a history professor at a local community college, which he started after retiring from teaching 8th grade history for 27 years. He thought it was as funny as I did.
Branden
Similar threads
