Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

well, this is a great line about Presidential Candidate Corey Booker:

"In Yiddish humor, which has its own absurdist bent, a schlemiel is a clumsy person who often spills his soup, and a schlimazel is the sort of chronically unlucky person the soup lands on. Booker achieved a double play: He spilled the soup on himself."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings-cory-booker-document-release/

 

Always baffled me. It doesn't surprise me that conservatives are against abortion, it does baffle me that they are against contraceptions as well.

It seems they would get a lot more support in this area if they also supported contraceptives.

 

Mainly Catholics whether conservative or not are against contraception. I do not know any non-Catholic conservatives against it and I know a lot of conservative people. The issue most have is forcing a company to pay for birth control if it is against their religious beliefs.

 

SCWs are against abortion/birth control in the name of being pro life. SCWs are also pro death penalty and do not see how that conflicts with their being pro life.

Go figure.

Its like SCWs are not really pro life ... but pro control-woman's-sexual-behavior ... because this is **** that keeps god up at night.

 

You say that, but isn't it people on the left calling for things like InfoWars to be shut down and silenced? I'm not sure that's comparable with making fun of CNN or MSNBC when they are wrong. Modern censorship is coming almost exclusively from the left.

First of all, that's disingenuous, what they want is for women to stop killing babies and there is a solid case that they are depriving a living human of their rights by killing it. Personally, I fully support people removing themselves from the gene pool by killing their children, but that doesn't mean that killing your children is a legitimate right on par with actual civil rights.

You say that but it was a conservative majority SCOTUS that gave gay people the right to marry....something no Democrat president supported before they were in office.

And here's the part where you consider shredding the 2nd amendment being nothing but "responsible gun ownership"....you guys can talk yourself into anything it seems.

 

The Democrats are trying to take a page out of Trump's book. I don't think it will work.

AP FACT CHECK: Democratic senator misstates abortion deaths

In her questioning of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday, a Democratic senator vastly overstated the number of women believed to have died from illegal abortions in the two decades before the procedure was affirmed as a constitutional right.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: “In the 1950s and 60s, the two decades before Roe, deaths from illegal abortions in this country ran between 200,000 and 1.2 million. That’s according to the Guttmacher Institute.”

THE FACTS: Known deaths from illegal abortion were much smaller. The California senator conflated the estimated number of women who had an illegal abortion with the number who died from it, according to the research she cites.

The Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights, cites estimates in a 2003 report that 200,000 to 1.2 million illegal abortions were performed in the 1950s and 1960s in the U.S. The report says the number of deaths from illegal abortion dropped from just under 1,700 in 1940 to just over 300 by 1950 and a little under 200 by 1965. The Supreme Court established a constitutional right to abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

 

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti..._a_well-qualified_rating_hearings_begin_today

more at the link

 

Translation - "I know he's qualified, but will he side with what I want him to side with or is he going to side against what I want him to side with?"

I'll save you the suspense, no, he's not likely to side the way you want him to, which is part of the reason why he's so qualified for the job.

 

Nobody is shutting down infowars as he has the right to say whatever BS he want to anyone stupid enough to listen, but private entities reserve the right to deny him a platform to do so.

Here is his website alive and kicking https://www.infowars.com/ (BTW it is the same net neutrality repealed by conservatives that puts his website at risk)

That is nothing like calling the press the enemy of the people simply cos they report all the stupid thing the dotard says or does.

The baby is free to live if it can survive on its own but a woman should have the right to decide what is in her own body. The baby's right to live should not impinge on the woman's right over her own body.

Worse still, the same peple that want women to have unwanted babies and the ones that want to deny same child the social welfare benefits that could help him not ddevelop into a `nuisance to the rest of the society.

But then we all know what you all really think when you think no one is watching http://www.post-gazette.com/news/po...ff-congress-emails-texts/stories/201710030018

FALSE - there were four conservative judges and 3 of the 4 voted against it. The lone approval was roasted by people on the right and was called a traitor of the cause. Majority of conservative judges were against and if all the judges were conservatives, we would have likely ended up with a 7-2 denial.

On the other side, all 3 liberal judges approved and there is no question that a liberal will always support such.

Further evidence was the recent cake case, where all conservative judges ruled against the gay couple and approved of the baker discriminating against the LGBT couples.

You have nothing to support your claim except the typical fear mongering you spread to the ignorant.

According to you, the 2nd amendment should allow anybody to have any weapon, even a mad man should be able to have a nuke. Anything less is shredding the 2nd amendment.

That amendment is more important to you than than the numerous innocent lives being lost. The people who dont care enough about the living are the ones that claim to be worried about unborn babies - the stink of your hypocrisy makes me puke

 

Then this harpy tweets out this. Good grief.

 

more on Kamala's campaign for President:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/democrats-hostility-to-the-constitution-laid-bare.php

 

.....so you say "nobody is shutting them down" then you move to "they have the right to shut him down if they want to" all in the same sentence. Brilliant.

That's not what was said, what was said is that "fake news" is the enemy of the people....something you'd agree with so long as the statement exempts fake news that is useful to narratives you wish furthered.

You don't have to convince me, I fully support any mother shitty enough to think killing their baby is an option going ahead and doing so. Those kinds of people shouldn't be in the gene pool to begin with and if they are willing to voluntarily take themselves out of it, society benefits. Hell I'd even support offering poor people 500 bucks if they'd kill their kids, you could prevent a LOT of crime that way.

What I posted was literally 100% true, so you starting out by saying "FALSE" just shows you don't know what you are talking about and it invalidates anything else you have to say on the subject. Do better next time.

So up above you talk about the rights of businesses to refuse service when it comes to certain people and now you seem to be against it....you just can't seem to decide where you stand on that now can you?

Ah, so talking about the policies that many have pushed for is "fear mongering" now is it?

This is what we call a strawman argument....and not a particularly intelligent one. Do better.

Yes, every amendment, every civil right is more important than a few lives being lost....especially at a time that is one of the least violent in the last 100 years or so. As to unborn babies, perhaps you weren't paying attention, but I fully support people killing their kids. The more people who do, the better society as a whole is. The kinds of people who would kill their kids are the kinds of people who shouldn't have them.....so maybe do a better job of paying attention next time.

 

FALSE! cos I didnt say they could shut him down -
He has his company and website and his right to say whatever he wants, but he has no rights to use Facebook, Twitter or any private property as a platform to send his message in violation of the terms of service he agreed to. That I kick you out of my house for spewing BS does not equate to denying your freedom of speech.

Typical disingenuity!!! Trump was referring to the majority of the media press
original tweet


Later Trump clarified further
During an interview at the White House on Wednesday with Fox News — one outlet Trump frequently praises — he was asked: “Is the press the enemy of the people?”

“No, not at all. But the fake news is,” Trump told Ainsley Earhardt of “Fox & Friends.” “And the fake news is comprised of — it’s a lot. It’s a big chunk, okay? Somebody said, ‘What’s the chunk?’ I said, ‘80 percent.’ It’s a lot. It’s a lot. If I do something well, it’s not reported. Other than in the 20 percent.”

Simply cos Trump feels that they dont report on things he does well, 80% of the media outlets have become the enemy of the people. Is that more accurate for you?

Its hilarious that a pathological liar feels that media outlets that are not fueling his ego are enemies of the people.

Typical self righteous condescending drivel that one hears from the right. A lot of women terminate pregnancies out of difficult circumstance but to you a woman who cannot bear to have the child of a her rapist must be a shitty mother - thats some real shitty thinking. Next you would pay people to kill their kids but have a problem with abortion?

You falsely claimed a "conservative majority SCOTUS gave gay people the right to marry." implying that the conservatives were in support when in truth most of them tried to deny them the right.

A more accurate statement is "inspite of the efforts of the conservative majority in the SCOTUS, a liberal minority and a swing conservative vote gave gay people the right to marry"

Dont try to claim the glory for things you did not do

There is a difference between denying someone the inappropriate use of your platform and discriminating against someone under the guise of religious beliefs cos you dont like their sexual preferences.

When any attempt at responsible gun ownership or gun control is misrepresented as "shredding the 2nd Amendment" then it is fear mongering.

A simple denial would have suffice but you couldnt even do that

You sound like a seriously messed up guy

 

No, but it does say that you are in favor of censorship. Also, things change when you are operating as a public forum as Facebook, Twitter, or whatever are doing. If a public forum begins to censor, they become a publisher rather than a public forum.....those companies don't want that. So while I recognize the rights of a company to refuse service, in this instance, there are consequences for it if that's the path they want to take.....especially when they don't apply their rules equally. When you still have accounts up for literal terrorist groups like Hamas and conspiracy theory pages like Coast to Coast AM, it's hard to suggest that you aren't simply targeting specific people.....which again, would suggest you are more of a publisher than a public forum.

Yeah....and there is quite a bit of fake news pushed by those outlets.....and that fake news is the enemy of the American people. Again, you'd agree if the fake news from sources more aligned with your political views was exempted.

Yes, a woman who was raped and couldn't bear the thought of having the child of the rapist would be an absolutely terrible mother to that child. She'd be doing the child a favor by killing it rather than having to put up with being raised by her.

Secondly, absolutely I'd pay people to kill their kids. I'm on record being VERY pro-abortion because I view it as the most effective crime prevention tool ever devised. If you offer parents 500 bucks to kill their kid, and they take you up on it, they shouldn't be parents to begin with. That 500 bucks is a small price to pay to keep them out of the gene pool or at least limit the future criminals that they would raise to a minimum.

That's not a false claim, that's just the reality of the situation, you suggesting that it is a false claim kills your credibility because it suggests you don't know the truth.

Well yeah, the difference is that the person who refuses service due to their religious beliefs has a legal case for doing so, the other person is violating the terms of having a public forum and instead becoming a publisher by censoring specific content.

What some call "responsible gun control" is effectively shredding the 2nd amendment, that's the problem. I don't think anyone has a problem with truly responsible gun control that doesn't infringe on the 2nd amendment. It would be like someone calling for "responsible speech laws" that limited free speech or that limited the media's ability to report. Fortunately, we'd probably both be against that....then again our friends on the left have a soft soft spot for state sponsored censorship.

If you don't agree that essential civil liberties are more important than a few people being killed then you are a simpleton that should never have any position of power, no matter how small. Hopefully you know better and are just trolling.