swordfish

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

SF wasn't the only one that noticed the hypocrisy...... https://nypost.com/2022/05/04/howard-stern-hollywood-f-ked-up-for-dave-chappelle-vs-will-smith/ He gave a Stern lecture. Radio icon Howard Stern is tearing into Tinseltown, claiming they’re treating Oscar slapper Will Smith differently compared to Dave Chappelle’s attacker. The 68-year-old shock jock criticized the supposed showbiz double standard during a Wednesday episode of “The Howard Stern Show.” “This guy jumped up on stage and attacked Dave Chappelle,” Stern fumed into the mic, Mediaite reported. “As soon as that happened, did they let him go back to his seat and laugh and sit next to his wife and then give them an award? No! They took him backstage, they broke his arms and hands so bad.”

Biden: MAGA is the ‘most extreme political organization’ in recent U.S. history https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/04/biden-maga-extreme-political-organization-00029969 1 - Wonder what the "MAGA Political Organization" is......? 2 - Wonder how former President Trump enjoys residing rent-free in President Biden's head all the time..... 3 - Wonder if President Biden realizes Trump isn't actually in the mid-terms..... 4 - Wonder if President Biden has forgotten about BLM and their version of "extreme"......

See what you started Will Smith......Looks like security actually jacked this guy's arm pretty good. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10781055/Dave-Chappelle-attacked-stage-LA.html

Your alter-ego?

I'm a little concerned if the "leaker" is going to be prosecuted in any way as he/she should be. It would set a pretty bad precedent if not. (IMHO)

In light of todays "leak" from SCOTUS - here is a story from 2021....... BTW - anyone thinking today's leak was an accident is not smart enough to keep reading this post. No matter which side anyone falls on Roe -V- Wade, pro or anti it has (IMHO) always been a bad "law". This issue should have been left up to the states and (IMHO) there is no way the constitution "guarantees" abortion rights. Any state has the authority to allow or deny medical practices (such as abortions) according to the legislatorial whims within those states. This should not be a Federal issue. The argument is not "abortion is evil", it's about "it's a bad law" and that is what the court should be considering here. Of course that's not how it will be presented to the American people. "We can't restrict a woman's right to choose" is what we will be hearing in the coming days and weeks..... https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/yes-overturn-roe/ Of course the Supreme Court should take the first opportunity to throw out Roe v. Wade. It is an indefensible decision and always has been. JOHN MCCORMACK NRPLUS Throwing out Roe would not mean banning abortion. It would not even necessarily mean restricting abortion. Roe is a bad legal decision not because of any moral question related to abortion but because it is bad law. The Constitution does not say anything about abortion one way or the other, and it does not contain any provision that could reasonably be interpreted as mandating abortion rights or prohibiting abortion. The Constitution has no more to say about abortion than it does quantum physics. And the Founding Fathers knew where babies come from — if they had wanted to put something in the national charter relating to pregnancy, they could have done so. A situation in which abortion is prohibited absolutely and everywhere in these United States would be entirely consistent with the Constitution. So would a situation in which there are no restrictions on abortion at all. This is a matter for legislators, not a matter for judges The question of precedent should not give the justices too much anxiety. Roe is bad law, a political preference imposed for political reasons through a flimsy constitutional rationale made up out of whole cloth. This is obvious to many honest-minded people, including some pro-choice constitutional scholars. An honest person can simultaneously believe: (1) that the right to abortion should be legally guaranteed and (2) that the Constitution says nothing about this. Precedents that are obviously pretextual deserve no deference. In fact, the Supreme Court’s duty is precisely the opposite in cases such as these. The actual law should always take precedence over the fictitious law, even if the fiction was authored by a gentleman in a black robe. Because the Constitution is silent on abortion, a post-Roe order would be established legislatively. Put another way: Post-Roe, the law would be made by the lawmakers. That would probably mean that Oklahoma and Utah will end up with abortion laws that are very different from those of California and New Jersey. As a constitutional matter, that is appropriate — it is, in fact, how things are supposed to be: We have 50 different states for a reason. Black ceremonial robes notwithstanding, the Supreme Court is not supposed to function as an Iranian-style guardian council keeping the state and society within certain moral guardrails. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the law — which is written down for a reason. We write the law down so that we don’t have to renegotiate the rules from scratch every time there is a disagreement and so that powerful people cannot simply dictate to the less powerful what is permitted and what is not. If the abortion-rights advocates want to have a constitutional right to abortion inserted into the Bill of Rights, we have a constitutional-amendment process for such purposes. Get to work. Overturning Roe would not be a lasting victory for the pro-life side or a lasting defeat for the pro-abortion side. It is entirely possible that Roe could be overturned and that in 20 years we have even more permissive abortion laws than we have today. I wouldn’t put it past us. No-fault divorce wasn’t forced on the American public by left-wing activists — it was enacted by popular demand to popular acclaim. Most Americans support access to abortion early in pregnancy and support restrictions late in pregnancy. Democracy is an unpredictable thing, but it is likely that a democratic settlement on abortion — something that the United States has not had in five decades — would to some considerable extent reflect those preferences. The case against Roe is not that abortion is a great evil. The case against Roe is that it is bad law. That is all the Supreme Court is bound to consider.