Roe vs Wade Overturned

#926
#926
#928
#928
I’ve always wonder why women who don’t want the baby, don’t go ahead and have it, then chunk it off a bridge. It’s not murder. Seems like you should be able to sign a form for that.

Let’s be honest though, abortion has always been about being able to rid yourself in most cases, of responsibility. (Man and woman)
 
  • Like
Reactions: TOUCHDOWN!!TN, Caculator, -GiveHim6- and 4 others
#931
#931
Watching MSNBC to get the others side view today, in her monologue the host blames voters for not getting out after being told but went on to say it allowed an orange Oompa Loompa to be elected.

This is why you’re losing. Host like this freely inciting the division that is repeated by the viewers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, TOUCHDOWN!!TN, BreatheUT and 2 others
#933
#933
newyorkvol said:
I guess I think this has some good upside for democrats. I think the centrist view is that women deserve choice. I think conservative states’ trigger laws that effectively ban abortions after a point when you may not even know you’re pregnant are WAY to the right. It would be an easy campaign issue for a democrat in those areas to be centrist and win elections they would not otherwise win. This actually has the possibility of turning deep red states more blue.
Click to expand...
I kinda agree, but kinda disagree. I had hope for that side, because the highest elected liberal officials in the land had gotten stupid, and couldn't identify what a woman was. Right after the ruling, they magically knew what a woman was again, so I thought maybe it woke them up. However, then I realized that obviously not one single democrat understands the ruling, and you can tell that by their posts on social media. The supreme court didn't ban anything yesterday, but that's not what any liberal is saying, or any liberal news is reporting.
 
#934
#934
Majors said:
Watching MSNBC to get the others ode view today, in her monologue the host blames voters for not getting out after being told but went on to say it allowed an orange Oompa Loompa to be elected.

This is why you’re losing. Host like this freely inciting the division that is repeated by the viewers.
Click to expand...
Don't forget, they're also claiming to be the side of peace and love and anti-"bigotry" even though they can't understand, much less define, any of those things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Majors
#935
#935
ButchPlz said:
Don't forget, they're also claiming to be the side of peace and love and anti-"bigotry" even though they can't understand, much less define, any of those things.
Click to expand...
Great time to talk about RBG not stepping down. Great time to talk about Hillary botching the election and the Blue Wall. Great time to talk about Harry Reid and 2013 fillabuster. Confusing hypocrisy with democracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and StarRaider
#938
#938
Majors said:
Great time to talk about RBG not stepping down. Great time to talk about Hillary botching the election and the Blue Wall. Great time to talk about Harry Reid and 2013 fillabuster. Confusing hypocrisy with democracy.
Click to expand...
Hell, RBG recognized Roe vs. Wade for what it was, yet if she had been alive and sided with the justices that overturned it would she be panned by the left?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bassmaster_Vol
#948
#948
Thunder Good-Oil said:
SCOTUS is judicial, not legislative. They aren’t paving anything. They’re interpreting.

Choose to vote for those that promise to enact the legislation that you want. It’s called practicing democracy. Select the representatives that will create legislation more to your preference.
Click to expand...

You're more naïve than I thought if you don't believe that these justices didn't know what they were doing and the ramifications of taking up and overturning established law. You're being disingenuous in the conversation if you don't think the fight for SC Justices by Presidents and the Senate confirmers isn't anything but a path to legislative change.

Gloat over R v W, to the winner go the spoils - but don't embarrass yourself by acting like this isn't judicial activism.
 
#949
#949
Septic said:
You're more naïve than I thought if you don't believe that these justices didn't know what they were doing and the ramifications of taking up and overturning established law. You're being disingenuous in the conversation if you don't think the fight for SC Justices by Presidents and the Senate confirmers isn't anything but a path to legislative change.

Gloat over R v W, to the winner go the spoils - but don't embarrass yourself by acting like this isn't judicial activism.
Click to expand...
Or the correction of prior judicial activism?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88, GroverCleveland, Thunder Good-Oil and 3 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top