swordfish

A wedge issue in an election year......Let's just keep highlighting it......Kinda like "Replacement Theory" being something new that radical white nationalists dreamed up recently......(NYT - 10/29/2018) not last week, and from a liberal nonetheless. https://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-we-can-replace-them/ How dare whites feel aggrieved about being replaced? Those bastards, letting themselves get resentful over us replacing them. They deserve what they have coming. We’re not replacing whites because we love power, we are replacing whites because they are hateful. We know they are hateful because of how much they make us hate-filled toward them. If they didn’t flat-out deserve to be hated, we wouldn’t hate them so much. Our boots stamping on their inhuman faces forever is for their own good.

Wonder if this parent is having a hard time getting baby formula.......

BR - I think you and I are closer aligned on this issue than (maybe) you think. I certainly agree if RVW is overturned without a federal legislative action on abortion, there will be more to argue about because the states certainly won't be consistent and YES - unintended consequences will more than likely appear. Overly liberal states will get more liberal and overly conservative states will get more conservative. I WANT to believe the people we elected will actually do their job and find some middle ground for the US on this issue, but I am also a realist that thinks they still need a wedge issue for re-election. although I suspect there is. 😉 And THAT, my friend is why I hope to never be on the opposite side of the courtroom with you. So far, in any of my depositions or testimony, no lawyer has been able to throw me off. (I take pride that I have actually been complimented by an opposing lawyer once - and he was tough) I think you could be relentless wearing me down......So lets not meet in a courtroom, OK?

Jeez BR, I have enough personal experience testifying to zoning boards and dealing with lawyers to know NOT to get in an argument with one.......but since when have I not been consistent on my position that this should be decided legislatively, not judicially? Oh, and if I'm inconsistent in something, "exposure" on the GID is the least of my worries..... ✌️

The hypothetical "Judge" SF does not care to wallow into that hypothetical debate on a potential side affect of any new hypothetical abortion laws. Wondering what it has to do with the constitutionality of abortion. (The topic of this thread). Which again - SF's position is that it needs to be left to the states unless Congress can actually pass a law that specifically addresses abortion. SCOTUS got it wrong in Roe V. Wade and both sides know how shakey the ruling is which is why the Pro-Choice side has been so scared of this happening. (IMHO) Senator Schumer put a bill before the Senate last week that had absolutely zero chance of passing (even though there was enough support for a better bi-partisan bill to pass) just to keep the debate alive. SF would think that with the left in charge right now, they would be smarter if they were more willing to influence the laws that could come out on this issue instead of punting it to the next congress which may not be so left-wing or letting the States do it. Neither house leaders seem to want to solve this issue.

Sure........But does it hurt to question the potential of such an event? BTW - SF is a little tired of your narrative as well, but I will always respect it. Maybe that's the difference between us......and perhaps what triggers you?

So I have heard on every news cast since Saturday there was a disgusting shooting in Buffalo over the weekend where a lot of innocent people were gunned down by a racist lunatic who (IMHO) deserves nothing less than the death penalty and whatever worse punishment we can heap on him he deserves it. Did anyone hear about the mass shooting in Southern California? Or about the 33 people shot in Chicago (5 fatally)? Or New York City? https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shooting-weekend-violence-crime-police/11855997/

Yeah, your probably right.....Pfizer wouldn't plan anything remotely close to this. Just a coincidence.....

SCOTUS is saying either the federal lawmakers need to come up with a livable national law or it goes back to the states controls. Abortion is not a constitutional right. Since when is SCOTUS concerned about economics?

This actually checks out.......Wonder how much Will Smith and Chris Rock paid?

The MSM is extremely silent about this......

Seriously wondering why Dr. Fauci and his cohorts aren't behind bars yet...... https://nypost.com/2022/05/11/nih-director-tabak-confirms-agency-hid-covid-genes-per-chinese/ NIH director confirms agency hid early COVID genes at request of Chinese scientists National Institutes of Health acting director Lawrence Tabak confirmed to lawmakers Wednesday that US health officials concealed early genomic sequences of COVID-19 at the request of Chinese scientists — but insisted the data remains on file. Tabak told a House Appropriations subcommittee that the NIH “eliminated from public view” the data from the pandemic epicenter in Wuhan, China, before adding that researchers can still access it via an archaic “tape drive.” Vanity Fair recently reported that the information was hidden in response to a request from Chinese scientists, despite potentially resolving whether the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology or passed naturally from animals to humans. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) asked Tabek to explain why US officials would comply with such a request “There’s no question that the communication that we had about the sequence archive — Sequence Read Archive — could have been improved. I freely admit that,” Tabek said. “If I may, the archive never deleted the sequence, it just did not make it available for interrogation.”

Literally all this abortion debate is worth today......

Is anyone surprised at this revelation? 😆 Sorry DE had to say it.....Free speech and all....

Here's a novel idea - Joy Behar proposes women to have a "sex strike" in opposition to the alleged Roe V Wade overturn. I guess abstinence WOULD keep the need for abortions at an all-time low .....As well - maybe people would THINK before participating in sex since abortion IS a great form of birth control without using the inconvenient things like the pill or maybe a condom.....IDK..... https://www.mediaite.com/tv/joy-behar-proposes-a-sex-strike-to-battle-potential-overturn-of-roe-we-have-more-power-than-we-think/ The View co-host Joy Behar has an idea to stop any potential overturning of Roe v. Wade: a sex strike. This week on The View, Behar floated the idea while mentioning past examples of depriving men of carnal pleasures to back up the case. The suggestion came during a discussion about the opinion draft leak out of the Supreme Court suggesting Roe v. Wade could be overturned soon by the court, of course, as well as the future consequences such a reversal could lead to. “Women in the world have conducted sex strikes in history,” Behar told her co-hosts. “In 2003, a sex strike helped to end Liberia’s brutal civil war and the woman who started it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In 2009, Kenyan women enforced a sex ban until police political infighting ceased. Within one week, there was a stable government.” While the audience laughed at the idea, Behar declared, “We have more power than we think we do and some of it could be in the bedroom.” Co-host Sara Haines was down for the idea, adding, “And what a perfect weapon and method for the topic we’re talking about.” Behar earlier in the week suggested Roe v. Wade being overturned after decades could be a slippery slope that leads to things like gay marriage and interracial marriage eventually being threatened or decided at the state level. Co-host Whoopi Goldberg ended the segment on sex strikes by saying Roe v. Wade being overturned could backfire on men, as well as women. “I want us all to have the same rights, the right to decide what is right for yourself [and] your family,” she said. “You don’t have to have an abortion. I don’t have to have an abortion. No one does, but if someone needs one, why shouldn’t they be able to get it? And, otherwise, men, this is going to come after you in some weird way too.” I know politicians have the ability to change their own minds over time - but this one from President Biden (once Senator Biden) is pretty much ignored .....and back then (in the 70's and 80's) he was pretty much against Roe V Wade......Guessing a lot of his fans today don't know this about him...... https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/04/flip-floppin-joe-biden-once-voted-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/ “I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body,” he told the Washingtonian in 1974, one year after the court legalized abortion. “I don’t like the Supreme Court decision on abortion. I think it went too far,” he added. Biden doubled down years later in 1982 when he voted to approve a constitutional amendment that would have allowed abortion to become a state issue instead of a federal one. Then-Senator Biden “was the only Democrat singled out by the New York Times at the time as supporting the amendment that the National Abortion Rights Action League called “the most devastating attack yet on abortion rights,'” the New York Post reported. On Tuesday, however, President Biden flip-flopped and supported the Court’s 1973 decision. “Roe has been the law of the land for almost 50 years, and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned,” he said. “I believe that a woman’s right to choose is fundamental.” “But even more, equally profound is the rationale used. It would mean that every other decision relating to the notion of privacy is thrown into question,” Biden claimed. Biden’s 180-degree change is a result of how radical the Democrat Party has become. In the last 20 years, the Democrat Party has begun championing critical race theory, glorifying abortion, lifting public safety measures through soft-on-crime initiatives, and professing transgenderism to be a protected class. The Democrat Party was in the early 1900s a workers’ party, geared toward the American family. It has since become deconstructed by ideology into intersectionality. Now the Democrat Party is a “coalition” of marginalized and opposed groups that allegedly form a whole. “We’re not a cult, we’re a coalition,” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) explained in April. “If you’re a cult it’s very easy, you just take orders from the cult leader. … Just bend the knee to the cult leader and fall in line.” Former President Barack Obama was the first leader of the Democrat Party to successfully wield intersectionality. But under President Joe Biden, the politics of intersectionality has fallen prey to party infighting, such as between Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV).

SO who do you think got what they deserved? I'm not saying the "punishment" was wrong - I'm (and Mr. Stern as well) just pointing out the difference in the elitist's response to the actual incidents. (ie - an outpouring of sympathy towards Will Smith -VS- silence and ignoring). Granted - the guy attacking Chappelle was armed and absolutely deserved to be taken down aggressively, but the silence from the previously outspoken is deafening......anyone who gets offended by a comedian/entertainer to the point they charge the stage shouldn't have been there to begin with. These people probably wouldn't have been able to handle a Mel Brooks movie that's for sure......

HAPPY