Senate Republicans must block Biden Supreme Court Nominee

[MLD Woody]

23 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

That's true especially if nominees are going to be brought up on either side that espouse the furthest left or the furthest right ridiculous bleeding edge of the platforms. And in almost every instance that would be the Democrats.

WSS

I don't think any part of your post here is true. 

 

And as we've discussed many times... What someone thinks is "extreme" is based relatively from where they themselves are politically, not where that thing is on an absolute scale. If you're far right you're going to act like a moderate Dem is some extremists left winger. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

 

 

 

 

[Westside Steve]

25 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

I don't think any part of your post here is true. 

 

And as we've discussed many times... What someone thinks is "extreme" is based relatively from where they themselves are politically, not where that thing is on an absolute scale. If you're far right you're going to act like a moderate Dem is some extremists left winger. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

 

 

 

 

 

edit

Only because in my opinion you false flag the information. For instance on the far crazy right of the abortion issue might be to make masturbation illegal; too crazy? Okay let's say the far right might say no abortion anytime for any reason. Are we on the same page there? But the hard left would say abortion at any time for any reason. How many of each polar opposite do you think there are?

Maybe you can find an example on slate or Mother Jones or somewhere but I'm betting there are more nominees on the left end of that bell curve.

And I believe that one of the reasons for polarisation is that people on the left, or as I call them you guys, often float out crazy s***.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

49 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

 

edit

Only because in my opinion you false flag the information. For instance on the far crazy right of the abortion issue might be to make masturbation illegal; too crazy? Okay let's say the far right might say no abortion anytime for any reason. Are we on the same page there? But the hard left would say abortion at any time for any reason. How many of each polar opposite do you think there are?

Maybe you can find an example on slate or Mother Jones or somewhere but I'm betting there are more nominees on the left end of that bell curve.

And I believe that one of the reasons for polarisation is that people on the left, or as I call them you guys, often float out crazy s***.

WSS

About 30% say legal whenever and about 20% say illegal whenever.

That leaves the remainder saying it should be legal in some cases. 

 

 

You always assume there is more of whatever bad thing you're talking about on the left. That's nothing new. Even without any actual evidence. Again, what someone considers far left or far right has a lot to do with where they sit on the political spectrum.

[MLD Woody]

Speaking of political theater ....

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ted-cruz-twitter-ketanji-brown-jackson-b2042799.html

 

 

 

[Axe]

22 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Speaking of political theater ....

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ted-cruz-twitter-ketanji-brown-jackson-b2042799.html

 

 

 

Gee, imagine having a job representing people and looking to see the opinion of your recent actions from the people you represent.

What a novel idea..

 

That's kind how it's supposed to work no?

[cccjwh]

2 minutes ago, Axe said:

Gee, imagine having a job representing people and looking to see the opinion of your recent actions from the people you represent.

What a novel idea..

I didn't realize only Texans were on Twitter.

[Westside Steve]

34 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

About 30% say legal whenever and about 20% say illegal whenever.

That leaves the remainder saying it should be legal in some cases. 

 

 

You always assume there is more of whatever bad thing you're talking about on the left. That's nothing new. Even without any actual evidence. Again, what someone considers far left or far right has a lot to do with where they sit on the political spectrum.

Always? You're a moron. But that aside maybe you can give me a list of major candidates who think it should be illegal and every situation.

 most people think it should be legal which restrictions.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/where-2020-democrats-stand-on-abortion

WSS

[MLD Woody]

14 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

Always? You're a moron. But that aside maybe you can give me a list of major candidates who think it should be illegal and every situation.

 most people think it should be legal which restrictions.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/where-2020-democrats-stand-on-abortion

WSS

That last part is literally what I said in my post

[MLD Woody]

24 minutes ago, Axe said:

Gee, imagine having a job representing people and looking to see the opinion of your recent actions from the people you represent.

What a novel idea..

 

That's kind how it's supposed to work no?

Hahahahaha

 

That's some Olympic level gymnastics right there 

[Westside Steve]

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

That last part is literally what I said in my post

The Lunatic Fringe is know how abortions any time under any circumstances versus anytime at a place for whatever reason.

So your job is to find me a list of major candidates like I gave you who are never for any reason people. Not some f****** state senator from Louisiana or whatever you will dig up.

WSS

[cccjwh]

 

[Westside Steve]

12 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

 

And that's correct. Your point?

WSS

[Axe]

4 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Hahahahaha

 

That's some Olympic level gymnastics right there 

I'm not surprised that the basics of representation in the digital age would escape you.

[Axe]

[DieHardBrownsFan]

[cccjwh]

16 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

And that's correct. Your point?

WSS

I think a US Senator should know what is in the Constitution. 

[Westside Steve]

24 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

I think a US Senator should know what is in the Constitution. 

So exactly what would that be? In your opinion of course.

WSS

[cccjwh]

33 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

So exactly what would that be? In your opinion of course.

WSS

I guess you had the same Government teacher as the Senator. 

[Westside Steve]

Just now, cccjwh said:

I guess you had the same Government teacher as the Senator. 

So judging from the snark you have no idea? As I suspected.

You do realize there are parameters in which abortion is legal correct? And you do also realized that the Roe v Wade is based on medical parameters which have changed since it was added, correct? And you do realize that repealing or rewriting Roe v Wade does not make abortion illegal across the u.s. right?

WSS

[cccjwh]

19 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

So judging from the snark you have no idea? As I suspected.

You do realize there are parameters in which abortion is legal correct? And you do also realized that the Roe v Wade is based on medical parameters which have changed since it was added, correct? And you do realize that repealing or rewriting Roe v Wade does not make abortion illegal across the u.s. right?

WSS

Yeah, you are a little lost. Whereas the Constitution does it give us the rights to "pursuit of happiness"? Where is the Constitution does it give us the rights to "liberty"? Like it does talk about, it says the state can't take it away w/o due process. So when a Senator tweets what "rights" the Constitution gives, maybe she should read it first. 

 

[Westside Steve]

24 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

Yeah, you are a little lost. Where is the Constitution does it give us the rights to "pursuit of happiness"? Where is the Constitution does it give us the rights to "liberty"? Life it does talk about, it says the state can't take it away w/o due process. So when a Senator tweets what "rights" the Constitution gives, maybe she should read it first. 

 

Don't be facetious. There are literally hundreds of things people would like to do regarding life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that are prohibited by the government. Sorry. And may I say that the term due process his vague almost to the point of being facetious.

WSS

[Vambo]

[cccjwh]

8 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Don't be facetious. There are literally hundreds of things people would like to do regarding life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that are prohibited by the government. Sorry. And may I say that the term due process his vague almost to the point of being facetious.

WSS

Did you even read the tweet? A GOP Senator stated those three things are in the Constitution. Two are not, one is sort of is. I stated that the GOP Senator should know what is in the Constitution. And made fun of her stupidity. I'm guessing you got triggered by the "a" word and started some other conservation. 

[Canton Dawg]

When Barry was President, he said he visited all 57 states.

Since he was a sitting President, one would think he knew how many fucking states there are in the country.

Go ahead and defend that statement.

[Gorka]

15 hours ago, cccjwh said:

I think a US Senator should know what is in the Constitution. 

Wow, a Senator getting the two documents confused. Devastating.  

You have demonrat senators that think islands float and Putin invaded Korea. so STFU

Back to the Declaration..do "you know the thing"  ?

 

 

[Gorka]

14 hours ago, cccjwh said:

Yeah, you are a little lost. Where is the Constitution does it give us the rights to "pursuit of happiness"? Where is the Constitution does it give us the rights to "liberty"? Life it does talk about, it says the state can't take it away w/o due process. So when a Senator tweets what "rights" the Constitution gives, maybe she should read it first. 

 

 

What does the Constitution say about life and liberty?

.... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws ..

 

The constitutional guarantee that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws that is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances in their lives, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.

From 1823 forward, the phrase “pursuit of happiness” from the Declaration of Independence appeared in ninety-four United States Supreme Court cases. The pursuit of happiness was used by litigants to argue for everything from the right to privacy to the right to pursue one’s chosen occupation, and it was invoked by the Court to uphold the same. The most recent edition of Black’s Law Dictionary cites to that case law as it defines the pursuit of happiness as the “constitutional right to pursue any lawful business or activity . . . that might yield the highest enjoyment, increase one’s prosperity, or allow the development of one’s faculties.”1 While this definition reflects how the pursuit of happiness has been cited in Supreme Court case law from the 1820s forward, it does not tell us how the phrase was understood in its historical context.

 

 

 

[Westside Steve]

9 hours ago, cccjwh said:

Did you even read the tweet? A GOP Senator stated those three things are in the Constitution. Two are not, one is sort of is. I stated that the GOP Senator should know what is in the Constitution. And made fun of her stupidity. I'm guessing you got triggered by the "a" word and started some other conservation. 

I did and the Constitution doesn't mention abortion. If you want to talk Roe v Wade talk Roe v Wade. An abortion really isn't my issue just pointing out that some of you guys are insane about it. Then again being rewarded for irresponsibility and taking the path of least resistance is kind of a Hallmark of the Democrat plan.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

3 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

I did and the Constitution doesn't mention abortion. If you want to talk Roe v Wade talk Roe v Wade. An abortion really isn't my issue just pointing out that some of you guys are insane about it. Then again being rewarded for irresponsibility and taking the path of least resistance is kind of a Hallmark of the Democrat plan.

WSS

What's the "reward" in this case?

 

Not to mention contraceptives fail... But we've done this song and dance before on here too. 

[Westside Steve]

8 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

What's the "reward" in this case?

 

Not to mention contraceptives fail... But we've done this song and dance before on here too. 

We've wasted enough time on this. If you believe that the vast majority Siobhan unwanted pregnancies are due to the failure of contraceptives used properly then you do. Not sure of the numbers and it doesn't matter but I guess that number would be about the same as people who are actually thrown clear of an auto accident and were fortunate not to have been wearing a seatbelt.

WSS

PS it's no abortion anytime for any reason versus Anytime Anyplace for any reason.

[calfoxwc]

5 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

What's the "reward" in this case?

Not to mention contraceptives fail... But we've done this song and dance before on here too. 

the reward is lack of consequences due to serious irresponsibility.

We see it on the news every day. Some kills a policeman - it's because of police brutality. Someone crashes into a jewelry store and a group of thugs steal everything - but it's because of "systemic racism". A woman gets pregnant - and wants to murder the child - it's "oppression against women".  In politics - biden groups serious mistakes are stalinpukin's fault, Pres Trump's fault, republican's fault, American voters' fault, etc etc etc etc.

     It seems the same people who feel that a women is allowed to murder her child just because she FEELS like it...seem to be the same people who don't care about the mass intentional murder/genocide russia is committing in the Ukraine, and seem to be the same people who joke in a discussion about the Holocaust, and refuse to comment about Holodomor..

   Pukin is committing the same starvation/destruction of people in the Ukraine as stalin did.

History is repeating itself again. I don't know how WWIII doesn't start - but the russian army is failing and floundering badly in the Ukraine - so I fear it will be a tactical nuclear or chemical weapon pukin will use to his advantage. for him, it is all or nothing time - he can't wait because we are at our weakest, most divided, with the most corrupt, incompetent bunch of losers in our governmente - in history.

    The reward is, a complete lack of having to accept responsibility for one's destructive actions. (see joe and hunter biden).

All hell may break loose soon.