RIOT, ahem, Protest Season 2022 in 3, 2, xx

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

a women’s family center in Wisconsin was firebombed this week. mobs are gathering outside theorists homes of scotus justices. And liberals are disrupting catholic masses. the liberal way - give me what him want, or I’ll throw a tantrum.

Viability isn’t a made up concept. What is made up, is suggestingbthatvsokeonebisnt human unless they are viable.

I’ll ask again, how would you define it? no 2 babies are identical, they don’t reach viability at the same time, so how would you define it?? at what point in pregnancy would you ban elective abortions?

i keep asking, you keep
dodging…

a michigan state senator who no one has ever heard of, that’s a great example wayne.

you criticize tucker carlson for going after CA teachers, but you didn’t offer a syllable about why he was wrong. what if he was right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim try some reading out side your bubble

Doctors often consider fetal viability the point at which a baby can be resuscitated at delivery and can survive without significant morbidity. Many times this age of viability is about 24 weeks gestation.

But I understand you live in the world of alternative facts

https://www.verywellfamily.com/prema...bility-2371529


Why would I suggest Tucker was right .. how is that even a topic a rational person would entertain

But a cult-member like your self you’re willing to entertain the idea

I would respect people if their stance was just we don’t like the concept of abortion.. but that’s not it the anti Abortion crowd is more about virtue signaling.

Which is just my view of them . I thought I would rationalize it the way Conservatives do.. base it on my feeling ,

the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.

Ya know the thing liberals are accuse of all the time

They care about the unborn until. It’s born than it’s time to support the next unborn child and the cycle continues.. but these morality zealots , have no intention of stopping with abortion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim try some reading out side your bubble

Doctors often consider fetal viability the point at which a baby can be resuscitated at delivery and can survive without significant morbidity. Many times this age of viability is about 24 weeks gestation.

But I understand you live in the world of alternative facts

https://www.verywellfamily.com/prema...bility-2371529


Why would I suggest Tucker was right .. how is that even a topic a rational person would entertain

But a cult-member like your self you’re willing to entertain the idea

I would respect people if their stance was just we don’t like the concept of abortion.. but that’s not it the anti Abortion crowd is more about virtue signaling.

Which is just my view of them . I thought I would rationalize it the way Conservatives do.. base it on my feeling ,

the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.

Ya know the thing liberals are accuse of all the time

They care about the unborn until. It’s born than it’s time to support the next unborn child and the cycle continues.. but these morality zealots , have no intention of stopping with abortion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Doctors often consider fetal viability the point at which a baby can be resuscitated at delivery"

OK, I said it twice, and you didn't grasp it. I'll try to use smaller words.

I know what viability means. But who says viability = being a human being?

Is that really going too fast for you?

"Why would I suggest Tucker was right"

But you offered ZERO evidence that he was wrong. Is he wrong for criticizing CA teachers? It's NEVER OK to criticize CA teachers?

[detbuch]

"Doctors often consider"--Wow, that's something you can hang your hat on.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Doctors often consider"--Wow, that's something you can hang your hat on.

I know crazy right. Actually considering they are doctors for a living …. Let me guess their in on it to make money
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Doctors often consider fetal viability the point at which a baby can be resuscitated at delivery"

OK, I said it twice, and you didn't grasp it. I'll try to use smaller words.

I know what viability means. But who says viability = being a human being?

Is that really going too fast for you?

"Why would I suggest Tucker was right"

But you offered ZERO evidence that he was wrong. Is he wrong for criticizing CA teachers? It's NEVER OK to criticize CA teachers?

But who says viability = being a human being?

Normal people !

But you offered ZERO evidence that he was wrong.

In America Jim not sure if this is new to you but it’s not my responsibility to prove Tucker wrong it’s Tuckers responsibility to prove he’s right . Not just make baseless accusations.. while providing no evidence. And ism sure you believe him so what’s to argue ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I know crazy right. Actually considering they are doctors for a living …. Let me guess their in on it to make money
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"often consider" is not a committed, definitive, statement. It implies that they often don't consider. Not a scientifically conclusive disposition. Nor are most doctors research biologists or embryologists. Doctors practice medicine on the basis of scientific theories, they are not who create the theories. They are trained how to treat natal and pre-natal malfunctions and recommend how to keep those functions healthy. They are not the ones to decide what a human being is. They are the ones who medically treat humans.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

But who says viability = being a human being?

Normal people !

But you offered ZERO evidence that he was wrong.

In America Jim not sure if this is new to you but it’s not my responsibility to prove Tucker wrong it’s Tuckers responsibility to prove he’s right . Not just make baseless accusations.. while providing no evidence. And ism sure you believe him so what’s to argue ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is a fetus viable in the womb? Of course it is. Do doctors treat humans. Yes. Do doctors treat mammals other than humans? No. Do doctors decide what a human being is? No. Do doctors treat fetuses? Yes. Who scientifically decide what or who is human? Biologists, embryologists. Do they consider the fetus to be a human being? Yes.

Is a human being viable on Saturn. No. Does that mean that human beings who travel to other planets on which they are not viable are not human beings there? No. They are still human beings there even though they are not viable without technological help. Fetuses are viable in their mother's womb. Their mother is a human being. They are viable inside of her with the help she was designed to assist them. They are viable when they leave their mother's body and are born. They are viable, as nature designed, from conception to birth and beyond. Throughout the whole process, during all the different stages with their different conditions, they are viable, and they are human beings with a unique genetic human code which they have and keep from conception to death. They belong to the species homo sapiens. They do not ever, from conception till death, belong to any other species. They are human. They are beings. They are human beings.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

But who says viability = being a human being?

Normal people !

But you offered ZERO evidence that he was wrong.

In America Jim not sure if this is new to you but it’s not my responsibility to prove Tucker wrong it’s Tuckers responsibility to prove he’s right . Not just make baseless accusations.. while providing no evidence. And ism sure you believe him so what’s to argue ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if it’s normal to say you need to be viable
to be human, explain your view on people in comas.

you can’t win this, because there’s zero logic to your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Since you say we should leave abortion rights up to states. I say, why stop there? Why not leave it up to counties, cities, neighborhoods, or—and this would really be fun—individual people?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if it’s normal to say you need to be viable
to be human, explain your view on people in comas.

you can’t win this, because there’s zero logic to your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

explain your view on people in comas.




If that’s the logic I am up against! I surrender .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

explain your view on people in comas.




If that’s the logic I am up against! I surrender .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you said viability is the prerequisite for being a human being, did you not?

Let’s just stick to babies then. How do you know when a unborn baby is viable? is it the same stage for every baby?

it’s something that obviously cannot be determined with any kind of accuracy. It’s an unknown, a mystery. whatever day you’d pick, makes zero sense, because the baby is no different than it was the day before. nothing spectacular happens in any one day.

if it’s “my body my choice” why should that right be forfeited after viability? it’s still a decision regarding the woman’s body.

too late to surrender,, let’s let it play out in november.

Do you realize you’ve never obverse a syllable about why it’s constitutionally incorrect to overturn Roe and let states decide?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Since you say we should leave abortion rights up to states. I say, why stop there? Why not leave it up to counties, cities, neighborhoods, or—and this would really be fun—individual people?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If an individual human can get pregnant without the aid or contact with any other humans--that would be fun.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Since you say we should leave abortion rights up to states. I say, why stop there? Why not leave it up to counties, cities, neighborhoods, or—and this would really be fun—individual people?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because I'm going by that pesky old document called the constitution.

The constitution lists things that are the jurisdiction of the federal government, and it also says that things not on that list, are up to states to decide.

I didn't just say "leave it up to the states", and make that up out of this air.

Using your "logic", why not leave the choice to rape children, up to individual people?

Not only can you not win this, you can't avoid humiliating yourself.

Many states will decide to leave this choice up to the mom. Other states, where most citizens don't like abortion, will restrict it.

This is a concept you're clearly struggling with and puzzled by, it's called "democracy". In democratic republic, sometimes you get what you want, sometimes others get what they want.

You seem to be under the impression that "democracy" means "always whatever the left wants".

I live in CT, I'm used to not getting what I want and accepting it. CT will not only continue to offer abortion, they'll probably make a tourist industry around it. And I accept that, because I realize that I happen to live in a place where the vast majority of voters are far left. I don't like it, but it's not unfair.

You can't grasp that.

[Pete F.]

Just announced, Mitch McConnell says protesters of the Supreme Court Justices are not authorized under the 1st Amendment. He also says if Republicans take charge, they will outlaw all abortions in the US, period. Welcome to Sharia Law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just announced, Mitch McConnell says protesters of the Supreme Court Justices are not authorized under the 1st Amendment. He also says if Republicans take charge, they will outlaw all abortions in the US, period. Welcome to Sharia Law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, it would be the opposite of Sharia Law. It would be law created by the representatives of the people, not created by Mohammad, the representative of God.

And if McConnell meant the Federal House of Representatives could outlaw all abortions, I don't think the SCOTUS would agree with him.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, it would be the opposite of Sharia Law. It would be law created by the representatives of the people, not created by Mohammad, the representative of God.

It's proclaimed by the Catholic Justices, as opposed to the Sunni Iman chosen by the people

And if McConnell meant the Federal House of Representatives could outlaw all abortions, I don't think the SCOTUS would agree with him.

Many people believed the People now on the court when they said Roe was settled law...... and I assume the Catholic Justices believe in the Immaculate Conception, so "If an individual human can get pregnant without the aid or contact with any other humans--that would be fun."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Many people believed the People now on the court when they said Roe was settled law...... and I assume the Catholic Justices believe in the Immaculate Conception, so "If an individual human can get pregnant without the aid or contact with any other humans--that would be fun."

show me where any of them
said they’d never overturn Roe, or any other precedent.

saying “it’s currently settled law and i respect that”, is nowhere near the same thing as saying “i would
never overturn a precedent.”

none of them ever tel you in advance how they’d rule on future hypothetical cases. That started with Ginsburg.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Actually, it would be the opposite of Sharia Law. It would be law created by the representatives of the people, not created by Mohammad, the representative of God.

It's proclaimed by the Catholic Justices, as opposed to the Sunni Iman chosen by the people

The Catholic Justices did not "proclaim" that the federal government can outlaw abortion. Their opinion is that the matter is left up to the states--which has nothing to do with Catholicism.

And Imams have more expansive duties than SCOTUS judges.
But, just as those judges don't have the power to legislate (which Progressive judges either don't understand or just don't care and do it anyway) Imams don't create laws. Nor do the people of Islam.
Their law has already been written. Whoever their "representatives" are, they can't create fundamental laws--just procedural laws like speed limits, etc.

Many people believed the People now on the court when they said Roe was settled law......

"The truth is that "settled law" is just a euphemism that jurists and legal scholars use to refer to Supreme Court precedent that is indeed binding - but only until a majority of the justices decide that it should be overruled." So a judge can say something is "settled law" in the way the terms is used to mean that it is binding. But it is necessary that any law can, and must, be overturned if it was badly, unconstitutionally decided, no matter how "settled" it has become.

and I assume the Catholic Justices believe in the Immaculate Conception, so "If an individual human can get pregnant without the aid or contact with any other humans--that would be fun."

I assume that Catholic Justices believe in only one immaculate conception. All other conceptions are run of the mill, regular, tedious, though often fraught with problems, biological conceptions.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I assume that Catholic Justices believe in only one immaculate conception. All other conceptions are run of the mill, regular, tedious, though often fraught with problems, biological conceptions.

and if facts matter, which i doubt, Gorsuch is Protestant. And Sotomayor is also catholic, but that’s ok.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Facts matter

Roe infuriated pro-life Americans and made pro-choice Americans complacent. Republican candidates could use the issue to rile up their base without risking an electoral backlash. But if Roe goes down, Americans who want to keep abortion legal will have to vote that way. And those Americans are a political majority.

Polls taken in the last six months paint a clear picture of the coming storm. Few Americans expected Roe to be overturned, and most didn’t want the Court to do it. The numbers vary, but the pattern is consistent: Between half and two-thirds of the public wants to keep Roe, and Roe supporters outnumber Roe opponents by about 2-to-1.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Facts matter

Roe infuriated pro-life Americans and made pro-choice Americans complacent. Republican candidates could use the issue to rile up their base without risking an electoral backlash. But if Roe goes down, Americans who want to keep abortion legal will have to vote that way. And those Americans are a political majority.

Polls taken in the last six months paint a clear picture of the coming storm. Few Americans expected Roe to be overturned, and most didn’t want the Court to do it. The numbers vary, but the pattern is consistent: Between half and two-thirds of the public wants to keep Roe, and Roe supporters outnumber Roe opponents by about 2-to-1.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then rest easy. You don't have to exert yourself with daily complaints, accusations, insinuations, diatribes, lies, and disinformation on the forum. Rest easy. Social justice will win and your children will live in a much better world. A lot of children won't have that chance, but eff them.

[Pete F.]

All you need to do is listen to the Harvard educated third ranking House Trumplican

“The Republican Party is the party of parents, babies, grandparents, families, and patriotic Americans.

Today’s Democrat Party is the party of Socialists, illegals, criminals, Communist Truth Ministers, & media stenographers.

This is why there will be a #RedTsunami in November.”

Hi: Parent, family guy, friend of babies, and patriotic American here.

And I want nothing to do with a Republican Party with a top elected official who writes something like this, which would have read better in the original Italian or German a century ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

All you need to do is listen to the Harvard educated third ranking House Trumplican

“The Republican Party is the party of parents, babies, grandparents, families, and patriotic Americans.

Today’s Democrat Party is the party of Socialists, illegals, criminals, Communist Truth Ministers, & media stenographers.

This is why there will be a #RedTsunami in November.”

Hi: Parent, family guy, friend of babies, and patriotic American here.

And I want nothing to do with a Republican Party with a top elected official who writes something like this, which would have read better in the original Italian or German a century ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It read very well in the original American English. Quite like how you and Democrat politicians describe the Republican party.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It read very well in the original American English. Quite like how you and Democrat politicians describe the Republican party.

Guessing leader in the party calling fellow Americans and people who live on their street Socialists, illegals, criminals, Communist Truth Ministers, & media stenographers. She left out groomer’s trans lovers and pedophiles .. seems to be a trend for Republicans basic name calling Seeing they have no policy’s to speak . McConnell wants a policy-free midterm campaign.

Imagine that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Guessing leader in the party calling fellow Americans and people who live on their street Socialists, illegals, criminals, Communist Truth Ministers, & media stenographers. She left out groomer’s trans lovers and pedophiles .. seems to be a trend for Republicans basic name calling Seeing they have no policy’s to speak . McConnell wants a policy-free midterm campaign.

Imagine that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

because the left NEVER speaks i’ll of those who disagree with them. Never.

The gop midterms will be about nothing but actual results. Crime, interest rates, gas prices, inflation, mess at the border, Russia on the move, unavailability of baby formula, record high drug overdoses, stock markets tumbling,

None of those things were this bad before Biden took over.

The commercials write themselves. Split screen with cheap gas on one side, $5 gas on the other.

The supreme court leak was a huge political gift. could very well be what saves the left, but not if 45% of Hispanics or more republican.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It read very well in the original American English. Quite like how you and Democrat politicians describe the Republican party.

Guess it didn’t take long for her rhetoric to result in bloodshed in a neighboring district. She threw fuel on the fire. I place all this violence at the feet of politicians that continue to appease and promote racism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Of course you do, shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Guess it didn’t take long for her rhetoric to result in bloodshed in a neighboring district. She threw fuel on the fire. I place all this violence at the feet of politicians that continue to appease and promote racism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see no reason why saying “The Republican Party is the party of parents, babies, grandparents, families, and patriotic Americans. Today’s Democrat Party is the party of Socialists, illegals, criminals, Communist Truth Ministers, & media stenographers. This is why there will be a #RedTsunami in November” (which is not even racist) should result in bloodshed. Unless there was something extremely wrong with the person who shed the blood.

Should there be bloodshed every time a Democrat politician says similarly negative things about the Republican Party? Should it be considered "racist" whenever Democrats do so?

[Pete F.]

The gunman who killed at least 10 people in Buffalo is a self-described white supremacist who advocates for the Great Replacement Theory.
He left a manifesto. See if you can tell the difference between it and standard fare on the Tucker Carlson show.
Almost half of Republicans subscribe to the gunman's theory that whites are being systematically and deliberately replaced, a theory that was, until recently, something to be found only on white nationalist websites.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The gunman who killed at least 10 people in Buffalo is a self-described white supremacist who advocates for the Great Replacement Theory.
He left a manifesto. See if you can tell the difference between it and standard fare on the Tucker Carlson show.
Almost half of Republicans subscribe to the gunman's theory that whites are being systematically and deliberately replaced, a theory that was, until recently, something to be found only on white nationalist websites.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The gunman is bat$hit crazy. Crazy people have used the Constitution, the Bible, Das Kapital, Dave Chappel, the Koran, abortion rights, hatred of minorities, hatred of whites, hatred of women, hatred of men, Communism, socialism, social justice, hatred of Christianity, hatred of their mother, hatred of their father, hatred of themselves, etc., to do bat$hit crazy things. It's bat$hit crazy to say that all those things, or people like Tucker Carlson, are responsible for bat$hit crazy people doing bat$hit crazy things.

Sometimes, often, you seem to be bat$hit crazy.