Stacey Abrams running for governor again

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

their unemployment is meaningfully lower than the national
average.

GA has very low taxes, and yet they’ve created a quality of life good enough to make tons of people want to move there.

CT has insanely high taxes, and they’ve created a failing, dying sh*thole that people are fleeing.

you’d say CT is smarter. because you are blind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're a one-trick angry person. All you care about is taxes. Where are the most highly educated highly paid people? If you think that's your idea of a s******* you need to look in the mirror
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You're a one-trick angry person. All you care about is taxes.

Wait...wait...he also cares about abortion and black unemployment. Oh, and his obsession with the Squad.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Wait...wait...he also cares about abortion and black unemployment. Oh, and his obsession with the Squad.

liberals don’t care about abortion! that’s why none of them are getting worked up about the SCOTUS case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

liberals don’t care about abortion! that’s why none of them are getting worked up about the SCOTUS case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trumplicans would do anything to overturn Roe, using their typically variable belief in integrity.

“To follow her own 1998 law review article, Barrett should have recused herself from this case (indeed, all abortion cases) if she has any integrity at all.” But that’s a huge “if,” especially because her recusal would give Roberts the controlling vote!

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...use-herself-in
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trumplicans would do anything to overturn Roe, using their typically variable belief in integrity.

“To follow her own 1998 law review article, Barrett should have recused herself from this case (indeed, all abortion cases) if she has any integrity at all.” But that’s a huge “if,” especially because her recusal would give Roberts the controlling vote!

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...use-herself-in
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why should barrett have recused herself?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trumplicans would do anything to overturn Roe, using their typically variable belief in integrity.

“To follow her own 1998 law review article, Barrett should have recused herself from this case (indeed, all abortion cases) if she has any integrity at all.” But that’s a huge “if,” especially because her recusal would give Roberts the controlling vote!

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...use-herself-in
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

did you read that article? Barrett said that IF a catholic judge cannot put aside their catholicism in order to decide a case based on the law, then they must revise themselves. where is the evidence that Barrett cannot decide a case based on the law?

Barrett said in her conformation hearings, that she often decided cars in ways that resulted in an outcome that she didn’t like, but which was what the law required. that’s fine.

all judges have personal
opinions they are supposed to set aside. whether those opinions are formed from their parents, teachers, or religion, they must be put aside when deciding cases. a religiously-informed conscience is no more problematic for a judge than a conscience formed by what the judge was taught in school.

you sound like a religious bigot. there’s no rule that says only atheists can be good judges. if barrett supported a law that requires people to get communion on sunday’s, that would imply she’s putting her faith above the law. i know if no complaints that. suggest she puts her personal beliefs above the law.

another baseless argument, what a stupid article.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

did you read that article? Barrett said that IF a catholic judge cannot put aside their catholicism in order to decide a case based on the law, then they must revise themselves. where is the evidence that Barrett cannot decide a case based on the law?

Barrett said in her conformation hearings, that she often decided cars in ways that resulted in an outcome that she didn’t like, but which was what the law required. that’s fine.

all judges have personal
opinions they are supposed to set aside. whether those opinions are formed from their parents, teachers, or religion, they must be put aside when deciding cases. a religiously-informed conscience is no more problematic for a judge than a conscience formed by what the judge was taught in school.

you sound like a religious bigot. there’s no rule that says only atheists can be good judges. if barrett supported a law that requires people to get communion on sunday’s, that would imply she’s putting her faith above the law. i know if no complaints that. suggest she puts her personal beliefs above the law.

another baseless argument, what a stupid article.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She wrote the opinion that said

Barrett writes, “A judge who suspends his moral judgment during sentencing sets his conscience aside” and “cuts himself loose from his moral moorings.” That unloosing is itself a sin, she concludes — analogous to “looking lustfully at a woman” and thus committing adultery “in his thoughts.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

She wrote the opinion that said

Barrett writes, “A judge who suspends his moral judgment during sentencing sets his conscience aside” and “cuts himself loose from his moral moorings.” That unloosing is itself a sin, she concludes — analogous to “looking lustfully at a woman” and thus committing adultery “in his thoughts.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she also said a judge must revise if they’re unable to separate their religious beliefs from what the law says. she didn’t say all
catholics must recuse themselves.

a person whose personal
morals are derived from catholic teaching, is no less qualified to be a judge than a person whose moral
compass was informed
by what they were taught in college or by their parents. as long as a judge can set personal opinions aside when ruling, they’re fine. if a judge cannot out personal morals aside ( whether they are catholic morals or
liberal morals), that’s a bad judge.

there’s nothing unique about catholicism that makes one a bad judge. nothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raider Ronnie]

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1218837]Trumplicans would do anything to overturn Roe, using their typically variable belief in integrity.

WRONG !!!
Most all conservatives are like me and have no problem with abortion as long as it’s done within a reasonable timeframe, NOT when the woman is 6-9 months and certainly not partial birth abortion!
Why any woman would be stupid enough to put her body through a pregnancy then abort it 6-9 months into it is #^&#^&#^&#^&ing retarded !!!

[Pete F.]

[QUOTE=Raider Ronnie;1218875]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trumplicans would do anything to overturn Roe, using their typically variable belief in integrity.

WRONG !!!
Most all conservatives are like me and have no problem with abortion as long as it’s done within a reasonable timeframe, NOT when the woman is 6-9 months and certainly not partial birth abortion!
Why any woman would be stupid enough to put her body through a pregnancy then abort it 6-9 months into it is #^&#^&#^&#^&ing retarded !!!

You can discuss timeframe with Jim all you want.
I’m not the one to explain partial birth abortions and the reason they are performed to you.
Next time you go to your doctor, ask him what they are and why they are done. Tell him you’re concerned about what you’ve heard.
I assume since you’re trusting him with your life, you might value his opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You're

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

good to see some of you making progress on this...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You're a one-trick angry person. All you care about is taxes. Where are the most highly educated highly paid people? If you think that's your idea of a s******* you need to look in the mirror
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

all i care about s taxes, yup.

i don’t deny Ct has a high education level. i’m just bit convinced that means what you think it means. we’re bankrupt paul. unfunded debt is over $50k per taxpayer. what happens when that’s due? any opinions?

very educated people applied high taxes to high incomes, then took billions from the casinos, and then spent zillions more than the tons of
money they had. if that’s what elite education gets you, i’m glad i went to uconn.

now we have legal
sports betting and legal
pot. hooray!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device