bluemoon32
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 27,371
- Team supported
- City
Backward cunts
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
US Politics Thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
M
M
mat
Guest
Global warming should sort out Florida.Texas and Florida will be the first to go.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
Trump will be pleased , he got all the right wingers he wanted in the courts
I'm sure you'll ignore this, but this has nothing to do with Trump.
This could have been avoided years before if the Dems didn't kowtow to the GOP about inserting justices. Plus they had time to enshrine this issue in former offices, but didn't.
Trump just took advantage of previous Dem weakness.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 34,096
Nothing to do with the President who appointed Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett.I'm sure you'll ignore this, but this has nothing to do with Trump.
This could have been avoided years before if the Dems didn't kowtow to the GOP about inserting justices. Plus they had time to enshrine this issue in former offices, but didn't.
Trump just took advantage of previous Dem weakness.
Course it’s not.
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,873
Nothing to do with the President who appointed Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett.
Course it’s not.
He is right in the sense that it didn't matter it was Trump, so long as a Republican was in the oval office they would always stack the court with federalist society gimps or religious nutters.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
Nothing to do with the President who appointed Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett.
Course it’s not.
I don't expect you to think about things.
Look at how the Dems agreed to wait to insert their choices and then were roundly rejected for the sake of 'reaching out across the aisle'! The GOP just march over them!
Stupid idiots believe the Dems aren't complicit in what's happened!
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
This decision as written absolutely opens the door to that, and a lot more.Absolute steaming garbage fire of a country. A country where guns have more rights than women. Can bet they will go after gay/interracial marriage next.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 34,096
The Dems fault that Garland was blocked for a year. Course it was.I don't expect you to think about things.
Look at how the Dems agreed to wait to insert their choices and then were roundly rejected for the sake of 'reaching out across the aisle'! The GOP just march over them!
Stupid idiots believe the Dems aren't complicit in what's happened!
The problem is that the Dems tend to try and be bipartisan and try to operate within the spirit of the law as well as the letter. The GOP do what they can get away with including lying and cheating.
I suppose it’s fair to blame the Dems for not being cunts.
What they should do is increase the number from 9 to 13 and appoint 4 more. Not an ideal way to do things but probably the only way if they don’t want the US to regress 100 years.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
This decision as written absolutely opens the door to that, and a lot more.
Uncle Wally One Ball
Well-Known Member
Let this finally be the thing that as civilised people makes us realise that they are backward idiots
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 34,096
Because it’s unfair to apportion individual responsibility to Republicans as they’re all the same!He is right in the sense that it didn't matter it was Trump, so long as a Republican was in the oval office they would always stack the court with federalist society gimps or religious nutters.
It’s a cop out.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
The Dems fault that Garland was blocked for a year. Course it was.
The problem is that the Dems tend to try and be bipartisan and try to operate within the spirit of the law as well as the letter. The GOP do what they can get away with including lying and cheating.
I suppose it’s fair to blame the Dems for not being cunts.
What they should do is increase the number from 9 to 13 and appoint 4 more. Not an ideal way to do things but probably the only way if they don’t want the US to regress 100 years.
The GOP made up some bullshit about Dems not being to insert a Justice via an outgoing president. The Dems said okay. That was on the Dems.
Obama played the **** in finally not 'reaching out' and inserting ACA regardless of opposition.
Sometimes you need to be ****.
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,873
Because it’s unfair to apportion individual responsibility to Republicans as they’re all the same!
It’s a cop out.
Not that he doesn't deserve blame it is just that the fat gimp made no difference in this area. But there are plenty of areas where he did.
ZenHalfTimeCrock
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 1,591
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Just on the off-chance that anyone on this thread runs into a pro-life Christian fundamentalist whose opposition to abortion is based on the Bible, I would begin by stating that it is never specifically referred to.
The nearest point of reference is to be found in the book of Exodus where the punishment for causing a woman to miscarry was merely a fine.
Moreover, Ecclesiastes 4v3 states ‘Yet better than both [the living and the dead] is he who has never existed, who has not seen the evil work that is done under the sun’.
Here the author appears to argue that ending what might turn out to be a painful existence might be a good thing. In other words, he seems to be saying that the quality of a potential life, rather than its sanctity, is what matters.
And he was not alone in this argument. Consider the words of another Old Testament character Job, a man of great faith and wealth, who after experiencing a series of personal disasters, complained that he would have been better off if his life had been terminated as a fetus: “Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb? Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been, carried from womb to tomb.”
There is also one passage in which a Jewish king, Menahem, someone who might therefore be assumed to be acting in the name of God, does the following: ‘….starting from Tirzah, Menahem attacked Tiphsah, all who were in it, and its territory. Because they wouldn’t surrender, he attacked it and ripped open all the pregnant women.’ (2 Kings Chapter 15 verse 16).
Passages such as these could therefore potentially be used to suggest that the Bible supports abortion, or at least that the Biblical position is not as clear cut as some Christians who are opposed to abortion tend to imagine.
Additionally, a Christian who believes that a fetus is sacred and a human being from the moment of conception would be committed to saving a tray of 20 newly fertilised human embryos rather than a five year old child were a fire to break out in a fertility lab and they could only save one or the other, which is obviously bizarre.
Hopefully, that might give them something to think about.
Barking mad Christian fundamentalists arrogantly assume that they know the Bible better than others. Well they fucking don’t! And neither do cunts like Rees-Mogg.
The nearest point of reference is to be found in the book of Exodus where the punishment for causing a woman to miscarry was merely a fine.
Moreover, Ecclesiastes 4v3 states ‘Yet better than both [the living and the dead] is he who has never existed, who has not seen the evil work that is done under the sun’.
Here the author appears to argue that ending what might turn out to be a painful existence might be a good thing. In other words, he seems to be saying that the quality of a potential life, rather than its sanctity, is what matters.
And he was not alone in this argument. Consider the words of another Old Testament character Job, a man of great faith and wealth, who after experiencing a series of personal disasters, complained that he would have been better off if his life had been terminated as a fetus: “Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb? Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been, carried from womb to tomb.”
There is also one passage in which a Jewish king, Menahem, someone who might therefore be assumed to be acting in the name of God, does the following: ‘….starting from Tirzah, Menahem attacked Tiphsah, all who were in it, and its territory. Because they wouldn’t surrender, he attacked it and ripped open all the pregnant women.’ (2 Kings Chapter 15 verse 16).
Passages such as these could therefore potentially be used to suggest that the Bible supports abortion, or at least that the Biblical position is not as clear cut as some Christians who are opposed to abortion tend to imagine.
Additionally, a Christian who believes that a fetus is sacred and a human being from the moment of conception would be committed to saving a tray of 20 newly fertilised human embryos rather than a five year old child were a fire to break out in a fertility lab and they could only save one or the other, which is obviously bizarre.
Hopefully, that might give them something to think about.
Barking mad Christian fundamentalists arrogantly assume that they know the Bible better than others. Well they fucking don’t! And neither do cunts like Rees-Mogg.
Last edited:
Bear with me here because I'm no expert on American politics, but don't supreme court nominees have to be approved by the senate? Presumably the Democrats didn't have the votes to get their nominee approved?The GOP made up some bullshit about Dems not being to insert a Justice via an outgoing president. The Dems said okay. That was on the Dems.
Obama played the **** in finally not 'reaching out' and inserting ACA regardless of opposition.
Sometimes you need to be ****.
M
M
mat
Guest
Here we fucking go....
Starts over there it will come here if the shower of shit we have in power copies it.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
Bear with me here because I'm no expert on American politics, but don't supreme court nominees have to be approved by the senate? Presumably the Democrats didn't have the votes to get their nominee approved?
I don't believe they got to that decision and the GOP stalled, essentially, being absent to do so.
Here's a decent article:
Make of it What You Will...
Citizen of Legoland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 12,110
Be serious, there’s absolutely no risk of that here. There’s no desire among the population and there’s no mechanism to circumvent that.Here we fucking go....
Starts over there it will come here if the shower of shit we have in power copies it.
M
M
mat
Guest
Be serious, there’s absolutely no risk of that here. There’s no desire among the population and there’s no mechanism to circumvent that.
Don Karleone
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 25,492
- Team supported
- Vampire Squid FC