touché

:-)

-CW

"Original intent"... most places in the US, abortion was completely fine up until "quickening" (the first movements the mother can feel), up until like the mid/late 1800s. So SCOTUS should have respected the law in the founders' time (as they piously insist we all do for everything) and used that as a yardstick. They didn't.

"I ain't quick!"
-Cider House Rules

[semantic note: this is the same usage as has survived in the phrase "the quick and the dead." Quick used to equal "alive"...]

-CW

ok, now that was funny!

-CW

OK, that was funny, but isn't it usually called "red tide"... or maybe that's Alabama football? Dunno...

(heh)

-CW

Excellent point. I heard Moore giving this spiel a few weeks back, but had forgotten. You're right, he's 2-for-2 now, and that's impressive...

-CW

Not factually accurate..

Totally factually accurate.

I have stated that THAT SCOTUS mistakenly "created" a right that never existed...

Incorrect. You don't even mention the SCOTUS.

There neither is, nor ever was, ANY fundamental constitutional right to kill one's unborn baby... There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that even RESEMBLES enumerating such a heinous and immoral "right"..

~ Michale

*
You have stated that that right "never existed," and you are incorrect because that right was determined to exist by the SCOTUS.

You have further stated that there is "nothing" in the Constitution that resembles "such a heinous and immoral right," and you are also incorrect there too because the constitutional right to keep and bear arms wasn't included for the purpose of knitting a sweater... it was meant to allow Americans to possess weapons specifically invented for the "immoral" purpose of killing other living things, especially people.

Many liberal legal scholars have stated as much..

Their opinions are as immaterial as yours (or mine).

There was NO RIGHT in the US Constitution for a woman to kill her unborn baby...

SCOTUS determined that fundamental constitutional right to exist with their decision in Roe, and your (or anyone else's) opinion that it never existed does nothing to change the fact that SCOTUS determined it did.

It's all a moot point, though..

I agree your points are moot.

The SCOTUS that CLAIMED there was such a right was wrong...

Your opinion (or anyone else's) of a SCOTUS decision doesn't magically erase the existence of that decision, in the instant discussion, the one determined in Roe.

This is the position of MANY legal Left Wing Scholars and sane and rational Americans everywhere..

I am moved by this newfound repetitive love of yours for Lefties... whose opinions hold as much weight as yours.

So, you continue to defend a right that doesn't exist, that never existed..

Incorrect. When (any) SCOTUS hands down a decision regarding what "constitutes" a fundamental constitutional right under language contained therein, anyone's opinion that disagrees with it means bupkis, and any (other) SCOTUS that hands down a decision claiming otherwise does not somehow magically erase the fact that that right was determined to exist.

If a future SCOTUS were to determine Americans could not keep and bear arms unless they belonged to a "militia," it would not magically erase the fact that a SCOTUS determined otherwise.

Please be specific about your objection.

I guess I had you confused with someone else. My bad. You can hardly blame me - it's so hard to keep score around here. :)

having a period would certainly make me want to stop being trans.

Not factually accurate..

I have stated that THAT SCOTUS mistakenly "created" a right that never existed...

Many liberal legal scholars have stated as much..

There was NO RIGHT in the US Constitution for a woman to kill her unborn baby...

It's all a moot point, though..

There is NO right in the US Constitution that allows a woman to kill her unborn baby..

The SCOTUS that CLAIMED there was such a right was wrong...

This is the position of MANY legal Left Wing Scholars and sane and rational Americans everywhere..

So, you continue to defend a right that doesn't exist, that never existed..

Period.. End Trans..

8/20

Emphasis on WAS...

There neither is, nor ever was, ANY fundamental constitutional right to kill one's unborn baby... There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that even RESEMBLES enumerating such a heinous and immoral "right"..

~ Michale

*
Incorrect. Emphasis on "nor ever was."

You claiming on permanent loop that the fundamental constitutional right never existed is patently false.

And there were many MANY liberals who opposed the "Constitutional Right" that THAT SCOTUS created out thin air...

Their opinions do not change the fact that it existed and neither does yours.

That "right" should never have been created because it was never there to begin with..

Your opinion is superfluous to the fact it existed.

The current SCOTUS merely put right what once went wrong...

So you're saying they removed that right.

Good talk.

It was a SCOTUS interpretation in Roe that established the right, and your opinion that it never existed is patently false.

Emphasis on WAS...

And there were many MANY liberals who opposed the "Constitutional Right" that THAT SCOTUS created out thin air...

That "right" should never have been created because it was never there to begin with..

The current SCOTUS merely put right what once went wrong...

This is the SAM BECKETT SCOTUS... :D

JL,

Speaking of Dr Beckett... Well!!???? :D

Liz,

Chris has an excellent blog going here. Don't you think he deserves better than that?

Maybe if we all - or, at least, most of us - reflected on THAT for a moment then the comments sections around here would be a better place to be and start to live up to the quality of all of the headlining pieces above them...

I am doing my part... :D

I guess JFC is simply doing what he accused me of doing..

Thinking the rules don't apply to him.. :^/

I have seen the light... Hopefully JFC comes around to a new way of thinking...

MC,

Dood!!! Where *ARE* you!!??? Yer getting me worried, buddy...

7/20

With the run-off in GA for the Senate seat, I guess we won't be seeing Trump in handcuffs until after December 6.

Heh

Shame, I was looking forward to the baby Trump balloon in an orange prison jumper being part of the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade this year.

Did you see the cover of the New York Post?

https://nypost.com/cover/november-10-2022/

Murdoch has had it (again) with Trump. How long before Trump whines and cries and threatens to take his ratings away until they make up? Lather, rinse, repeat.

Get 'em, Russ! :)

Chris has an excellent blog going here. Don't you think he deserves better than that?

Oh *pause* My *pause* God *full stop*

JFC is talking about Mike Pence, and he's entitled to his opinion.

Get over it.

Please be specific about your objection.

Heh

OK... So, we agree..

Yawn.

It's your "interpretation" and not really a Constitutional Right...

It was a SCOTUS interpretation in Roe that established the right, and your opinion that it never existed is patently false.

I am glad we agree... :D

Nonserious.

Or maybe Garland doesn't wait until after the run-off to start handing out indictments. Better to do it now before Republicans get too comfortable and can do any more damage to our government.

Here's a what-if?: What if Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer decide not to recognize the new class of Congress until the court determines whether Republicans involved in the January 6 insurrection and those promoting the Big Lie are barred from serving in Congress? It could very well be that the Democrats will easily have the majority in both houses after elections are held in states that lose their Congress members under the 14th Amendment.

We have to assume that Garland will prosecute all involved in attempting to overthrow our government and those who attempted to block Trump from being investigated. Maybe it'll be sooner than later.

Funny how the GQP trolls likes to troll endlessly about words that aren't in the constitution while ignoring words that are there like "well regulated".

Exactly right. It's the interpretation of constitutional language that "constitutes" a right, and there is no magical number of trollvish opinions that it "never existed" that can change the fact that the fundamental right was determined to exist by the SCOTUS in Roe and removed by the SCOTUS in Dobbs.

It's almost as if they just want to troll.

Yes, sir. :)

Mikey is a lying, sanctimonious ABDL idiot. He should go home to Mother before the orange death cult kills him, but it'll be more fun if he doesn't.

Chris has an excellent blog going here. Don't you think he deserves better than that?

Yes, these comments sections reflect back onto Chris and his work. Maybe if we all - or, at least, most of us - reflected on THAT for a moment then the comments sections around here would be a better place to be and start to live up to the quality of all of the headlining pieces above them...

Trump began to protest that “people were angry, but his voice trailed off,” Pence writes, adding that he told Trump that he needed to let it go. “Yeah,” Trump replied quietly.

As they talked, Pence writes, Trump said “with genuine sadness in his voice”: “What if we hadn’t had the rally? What if they hadn’t gone to the Capitol?” He added, “It’s too terrible to end like this.”

It's safe to say that Florida Man said none of that. He was right when he said that people would think that Pence is stupid because he is. Who would buy this book, much less believe it and who exactly does he think would vote for him for president?

Mikey is a lying, sanctimonious ABDL idiot. He should go home to Mother before the orange death cult kills him, but it'll be more fun if he doesn't.

The point is that you keep confusing CW's point, and my point was that there is no right to "lots of things too numerous to list" in the United States Constitution and it's an issue of how it's interpreted that establishes a right.

OK... So, we agree..

It's your "interpretation" and not really a Constitutional Right...

I am glad we agree... :D

JFC,

Funny how the GQP trolls likes to troll endlessly about words that aren't in the constitution while ignoring words that are there like "well regulated".

You are wrong on 2 points of fact..

Fact #1
The "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd is merely prefatory.. It gives ONE (amongst a multitude of) example(s) of WHY the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..

Fact #2
At the time of the writing of the 2nd, "well regulated" had NOTHING to do with rules or regulations, government or otherwise.. At the time of the writing of the 2nd, "well regulated" simply meant "well run", "well organized" or "efficient"..

So, act like an immature moron and call me all the childish names you want.

Still won't change the fact that you are factually NOT ACCURATE...

Which is pretty much par for the course for you.. :D

It's almost as if they just want to troll.

Says the guy who continues to troll... :D

6/20

Funny how the GQP trolls likes to troll endlessly about words that aren't in the constitution while ignoring words that are there like "well regulated".

It's almost as if they just want to troll.

Again, not factually accurate..

You want to play "splitting hairs" versus connecting the dots.

Would you like to take a stab at the REAL point I made??

Why? When you're missing the point.

The point is that you keep confusing CW's point, and my point was that there is no right to "lots of things too numerous to list" in the United States Constitution and it's an issue of how it's interpreted that establishes a right.

The (former) SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade established that the Constitution contained that right based on interpretation. Thus, it became a Constitutional right via law, no matter yours or any SCOTUS' moral, ethical, or political beliefs or interpretation of it.

A constitutional right that was definitely established was taken away, and there's nothing you can post about morality that will ever change that fact.

Discuss.

Incorrect. Life is life, and it's a question of religious dogma and/or political beliefs as to which life is valuable and which is not. For instance, in South Korea, there is a dog that is kept as livestock, and millions of dogs are killed in Vietnam every year. In Sweden they make dog jerky, etc.

Facts to support?? None?? Of course not.. Moving on..

You supplied no scientific proof of what you claimed was "scientific fact" so you provide the proof.

Non of those investigations were persecutorial..

*laughs*

In most, GOOD Americans died... That alone is worthy of the investigation..

In the Capitol riots, 140+ police officers were maimed and permanently injured, and good Americans died.

You are comparing apples and alligators..

I am connecting the constitutional dots for you and explaining that one man's claim of murder is another man's paid profession. People who're trained to kill people for a living wage preaching "immorality" shouldn't throw stones.

Again, not factually accurate..

I made the argument that there is no right to kill one's unborn baby...

Here, let me quote it to you, since you obviously misread it..

There neither is, nor ever was, ANY fundamental constitutional right to kill one's unborn baby...
-Michale

You see?? There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to kill one's unborn baby in the US Constitution...

Would you like to take a stab at the REAL point I made??

Or simply continue to shoot down yer fable strawmen you keep propping up??

As to the rest, you simply repeated my own comment.

Apparently, you are taking what I say to heart, eh Kick?? :D

Glad we are coming together in response to CW's plea... :D

5/20

And if I had made such an argument that there is no right "to kill" in the US Constitution then you would have an argument..

But I haven't so you don't..

You literally just made the argument that there is no right to kill in the United States Constitution, and the fact that you'd narrow that down to an "unborn" human or __________ <--- "fill in blank with whatever stage of human" doesn't change that fact.

So, these paragraphs can be ignored as they are not relevant to anything I said..

How convenient, but since you just literally made the argument that there's no right to kill a human in the United States constitution, albeit a nonviable and/or not fully-formed human, nevertheless still a human.

Completely non-sequitur argument bordering on gibberish.. Not relevant to ignored..

You think killing puppies is a "non-sequitur" argument to killing a puppy

Incorrect. Life is life, and it's a question of religious dogma and/or political beliefs as to which life is valuable and which is not. For instance and political dogma as to which life is valuable and which is not. For instance, people in Vietnam dogma

Because people maybe bastardize "science" in order to suit their religious and/or political beliefs?

Facts to support?? None?? Of course not.. Moving on..

Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi...

Non of those investigations were persecutorial.. In most, GOOD Americans died... That alone is worthy of the investigation..

You are comparing apples and alligators..

4/20

I am simply gabber-flasted that no one has made any 420 jokes.. :D

And if I had made such an argument that there is no right "to kill" in the US Constitution then you would have an argument..

But I haven't so you don't..

So, these paragraphs can be ignored as they are not relevant to anything I said..

Any more than killing a chicken. People have gone to jail for that... oh, wait. Killing of chickens is okay; killing of puppies is bad... unless it's for science like Dr. Fraud the losing Republican who lives in New Jersey. Cracking a fertilized egg is killing a chicken... oh, wait.

Completely non-sequitur argument bordering on gibberish.. Not relevant to ignored..

Because people maybe bastardize "science" in order to suit their religious and/or political beliefs?

Facts to support?? None?? Of course not.. Moving on..

Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi...

Non of those investigations were persecutorial.. In most, GOOD Americans died... That alone is worthy of the investigation..

You are comparing apples and alligators..

4/20

I am simply gabber-flasted that no one has made any 420 jokes.. :D

Let's be clear here..

Okay, I can do "clear."

There neither is, nor ever was, ANY fundamental constitutional right to kill one's unborn baby... There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that even RESEMBLES enumerating such a heinous and immoral "right"..

It's always interesting to hear a Second Amendment right-wing gun proponent insist there is no right "to kill" contained in the constitution.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

~ Second Amendment, United States Constitution

*
Why does one acquire a gun if not "to kill"? To hunt? Is there anything in the constitution that gives you the right to hunt? And anyone who's been in the armed forces of the United States is paid "to kill," and they're not killing a nonviable embryo or fetus, they're killing humans.

While you can certainly argue that you're killing for your country and/or in "self-defense," the fact of the matter is you're generally killing an innocent human also in service to his country in "self-defense."

Any more than there is a fundamental right to kill a no-longer wanted puppy.. People have gone to JAIL for that...

Any more than killing a chicken. People have gone to jail for that... oh, wait. Killing of chickens is okay; killing of puppies is bad... unless it's for science like Dr. Fraud the losing Republican who lives in New Jersey. Cracking a fertilized egg is killing a chicken... oh, wait.

And there is NO doubt that, after 6-15 weeks, it IS a baby we are talking about... How do we know this??

Because people maybe bastardize "science" in order to suit their religious and/or political beliefs?

And, if Democrats ARE the Party of SCIENCE, as they claim, then they must come to grips with this scientific fact..

Maybe people should "come to grips" with scientific facts rather than claiming their political and/or religious beliefs are "facts."

As Democrats have proven beyond ANY doubt, a Party doesn't NEED a "wide margin" to do numerous persecutorial investigations for the purposes of settling political scores..

Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi...

Orange/Greene 2024. Bring it!

"The other side has spent over $100 million to knock me down. 5 months ago I had a stroke and it knocked me down, but I got back up." - John Fetterman

Trust me, getting back up after a massive stroke is very difficult. It requires real determination. PA is fortunate to be represented by JF rather than a fraud from Jersey.

(sorry been on yesterday's threat posting photos and whatnot...)

Yesterday's "threat"!?

BWAH hah hah! Too funny. Your Freudian slip is showing.

Everybody got me laughing this morning.

I'm really weary of the term "election-deniers". They're election liars.

Exactly!

According to Pence's new book, the orange imbecile told Pence, "People are gonna think you’re stupid." The jokes write themselves.

OMG, JFC, this is too funny; I just had to look it up.

Trump told Pence: “You’re too honest,” and “hundreds of thousands are gonna hate your guts” (according to Pence).

Pence also confirms that Trump never reached out to him to check on his safety. But when Kushner and Ivanka Trump asked Pence to meet with the president five days after the riot, he agreed.

“He looked tired, and his voice seemed more faint than usual,” Pence writes of Trump.

“‘How are you?’ he began. ‘How are Karen and Charlotte?’ ”

Pence writes that he “replied tersely that we were fine” and told him that his wife and daughter had been at the Capitol on Jan. 6. “He responded with a hint of regret,” Pence recounts. “‘I just learned that.’ He then asked, ‘Were you scared?’ ”

Pence replied that he was angry.

“You and I had our differences that day, Mr. President, and seeing those people tearing up the Capitol infuriated me.” Trump began to protest that “people were angry, but his voice trailed off,” Pence writes, adding that he told Trump that he needed to let it go. “Yeah,” Trump replied quietly.

As they talked, Pence writes, Trump said “with genuine sadness in his voice”: “What if we hadn’t had the rally? What if they hadn’t gone to the Capitol?” He added, “It’s too terrible to end like this.”

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/in-new-book-pence-reflects-on-trump-and-jan-6/

*
"What if they hadn’t gone to the Capitol?"

They!? Trump -- in premeditated fashion -- knew they were armed and sent them to the Capitol.

“It’s too terrible to end like this.”

Yes, you are terrible.

So, to recap: It's not merely a book; it's a trial exhibit.

Really! It didn't seem that way. :)

It's pretty blustery outside.. We should see the more serious parts in the next 6-8 hours....

Good luck with everything and be sure to check in here when everything calms down...

I'm glad that you have finally learned that lesson!

Oh, I learned that lesson after 2016... :D

The lesson has simply been re-enforced in 2022... :D

3/20

Let's be clear here..

There neither is, nor ever was, ANY fundamental constitutional right to kill one's unborn baby... There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that even RESEMBLES enumerating such a heinous and immoral "right"..

Any more than there is a fundamental right to kill a no-longer wanted puppy.. People have gone to JAIL for that...

And there is NO doubt that, after 6-15 weeks, it IS a baby we are talking about... How do we know this??

Because SCIENCE says so... And, if Democrats ARE the Party of SCIENCE, as they claim, then they must come to grips with this scientific fact..

Even if the Republicans do win the House, they're going to be vexed with the same problem Pelosi's been dealing with -- a very tight margin. Which is going to elevate each and every little nutso group within the House Republicans to a powerful position, as any group of perhaps 10 or more GOP House members will have leverage over McCarthy and the rest of the party.

As Democrats have proven beyond ANY doubt, a Party doesn't NEED a "wide margin" to do numerous persecutorial investigations for the purposes of settling political scores..

2/20

Political polls and pundits lost ANY shred of credibility in 2022....

I'm glad that you have finally learned that lesson!

Quick: You're Kevin McCarthy, do you root for Lauren Boebert to win not? Discuss. ;)

You would have thought they'd learn something from the lopsided vote in beet-red Kansas, but as usual, the GOP extremists just shrug their shoulders, insist women aren't really concerned about it, and continue right on making their plans to eliminate more Americans' rights.

You think they'll slow their roll now? I wouldn't count on it.

A "red wave" is an actual phenomenon that happens when a local ecosystem is significantly polluted with effluent runoff causing an algae bloom.

effluent

NOUN

liquid waste or sewage discharged into a river or the sea

*
If anyone needs an analogy. ;)

Well carp...

I am somewhat concerned for my buddy, MC... I hope he is OK what with expecting the Red Tsunami apocalypse and all... :^(

I disagree that President Trump was the biggest loser.. I mean, I get why ya'all say that.. Ya'all ALWAYS say that President Trump loses at everything! :D

No, the biggest loser are political polls and pundits..

This is a worse debacle than the 2016 Presidential Elections.. And THAT was a major frak-up...

Political polls and pundits lost ANY shred of credibility in 2022....

The only silver lining in all of this is watching the pollsters and pundits fall all over themselves trying to back-pedal and claim they called it right the whole time...

Well, that and Florida... Florida is a HUGE silver lining.. :D

that (as he put it) plenty of Georgians like Warnock and are generally fine with him representing them in the Senate, but they'll vote for Walker if it means a Republican Senate

Thank you CW, for giving me some hope.. :D

We're smack in the middle of the passion throes of Nicole...

It's pretty blustery outside.. We should see the more serious parts in the next 6-8 hours....

One of the reasons I love Florida.. :D

1/20

I know, right!? And as you so rightly pointed out, there were a plethora of polls for several weeks before the midterms that were virtually all coming from Republican pollsters. It seemed to me as if the Republicans and Trumplicans were actively pounding the drums on right-wing propaganda media and flooding the zone with so much of that biased fake data with the specific intent to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Epic fail on their part.

We are . . . Penn State!

Good point, about the state-wide election. Just had to say that, hadn't considered it fully...

-CW

Yeah, I kinda like that better myself. Nice!

-CW

BWAH hah hah!

Oh, man, that was funny! Just what I needed, thanks...

:-)

-CW

Pence really seems to be a humiliation enthusiast. It's enough to make me wonder what goes on with Mother behind closed doors.

Really? They nominated a person who had already won state-wide office in a deep purple state. The Grim Reaper dumped millions of dollars on the state to Willie Horton 2022 the Black Democrat.