Politics Please say rock bottom is getting close

[Phatguysrule]

I would think this would be unconstitutional?

However, the supreme court could rule that you aren't a US citizen unless you have a child every 2 years starting at the age of 18 and ending at 36.

Especially since these right wing activist justices are only beholden to the Federalist Society.

Bingo. You don't qualify as a US citizen unless you contribute genetically to the birth of a child every 4 years between the ages of 18 and 38.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

LOL like that would stop something from changing.

If it is clearly presented, then it should. Or the courts aren't doing their job by upholding the constitution.

 

[SlyPokerCat]

If it is clearly presented, then it should. Or the courts aren't doing their job by upholding the constitution.

Amendments can be made. As they should be since we shouldn't live by rules made forever ago. Times and things change.

 

[Phatguysrule]

You didnt address the questions i posed about being up for interpretation and the lack of clarity search and seizure has to do with abortion? This lack of clarity is likely the stronghold some use to push their opinions/beliefs. Until it is clearly defined in an amendment, i am not sure how we can fault people for exploring other options of regulation based on thier beliefs?

maybe this is where an amendment is required like i think you said earlier? So maybe the focus should be on getting the constitution clearly updated vs going after, condemning and ridiculing those who have different moral beliefs?

if one doesnt like that someone else feels abortion is wrong and should be illegal, wouldnt energy spent on amending the constitution be much more effective than just labelling and ridiculing those with different beliefs than our own?
Get the constitution updated and then who cares what beliefs others have. they wont be able to instill their beliefs legally.

The constitution doesn't grant rights. It restricts government. It is not supposed to be specific. If a government act or law can be seen to be violating a given amendment it is not constitutional.

We can't be expected to list every item that is protected. The constitution would have to be updated millions of times per year. Everything that can be covered is protected (or, at least, is supposed to be).

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Amendments can be made. As they should be since we shouldn't live by rules made forever ago. Times and things change.

i 100% agree. But wouldn't that be the focus if something isnt working?

 

[SlyPokerCat]

i 100% agree. But wouldn't that be the focus if something isnt working?

I'm not sure what you are arguing. I said i wouldn't be surprised if some day there is a limit to how many kids people can have. There are clearly more immediate issues at hand than that.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

If you told your child to kill someone it would be the same as you killing them.

Accidents happen, but nothing about the Supreme Court ruling is an accident. It's all right there in black and white as a direct result of the Supreme Court ruling.

Let's try to keep the extrapolation to a minimum. All I'm saying here is that to claim the Supreme Court is restricting abortion rights is inaccurate. The Supreme Court is only saying that they don't have the right to prevent states from restricting abortion rights.

Now to be fair, I disagree with them. But I understand how their position is that they are preserving states' rights, even as the states restrict individuals' rights (or what is perceived as a right).

If in preserving an entity's rights, the government is responsible for the misuse thereof, then that means we must blame the government for all the racial epithets that are spewed by evil racist people using their freedom of speech for evil. I'm sorry, but that's not a conclusion I'm willing to draw.

 

[theprunetang]

Let's try to keep the extrapolation to a minimum. All I'm saying here is that to claim the Supreme Court is restricting abortion rights is inaccurate. The Supreme Court is only saying that they don't have the right to prevent states from restricting abortion rights.

Now to be fair, I disagree with them. But I understand how their position is that they are preserving states' rights, even as the states restrict individuals' rights (or what is perceived as a right).

If in preserving an entity's rights, the government is responsible for the misuse thereof, then that means we must blame the government for all the racial epithets that are spewed by evil racist people using their freedom of speech for evil. I'm sorry, but that's not a conclusion I'm willing to draw.

There is no equal equivalency between someone saying a bad word and someone not having control over their own body.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I'm not sure what you are arguing. I said i wouldn't be surprised if some day there is a limit to how many kids people can have. There are clearly more immediate issues at hand than that.

First, id like to state, i do not think we are arguing but having a healthy discussion?

There are more immediate issues at hand, but you brought this issue up.

my point stands on all issues though. Instead of pointing fingers and ridiculing those with other beliefs, wouldn't it be more productive to work on the constitution with amendments?

The focus on belittling and pointing fingers at those with different opinions is not as productive as working on the constitution to deny those with certain beliefs, the ability to act on them, wouldn't you agree?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

There is no equal equivalency between someone saying a bad word and someone not having control over their own body.

Nor am I claiming that they are equal in degree; the only comparability is in regard to the notion of "If you allow someone to do something, then you are guilty of doing that thing".

 

[SlyPokerCat]

First, id like to state, i do not think we are arguing but having a healthy discussion?

There are more immediate issues at hand, but you brought this issue up.

my point stands on all issues though. Instead of pointing fingers and ridiculing those with other beliefs, wouldn't it be more productive to work on the constitution with amendments?

The focus on belittling and pointing fingers at those with different opinions is not as productive as working on the constitution to deny those with certain beliefs, the ability to act on them, wouldn't you agree?

Not when it has to deal with things that can create harm to another human being. Restricting healthcare is one of those things that people should be ridiculed for if they are restricting medically necessary procedures.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Not when it has to deal with things that can create harm to another human being. Restricting healthcare is one of those things that people should be ridiculed for if they are restricting medically necessary procedures.

Understood. I just see that as a never ending spiral downwards of pointing fingers with nothing gained but wasted time and increased aggression. I see a much more productive solution would be to focus on adjusting/updating the constitution to deny them the ability to instill their beliefs on others.
Not sure how that wouldn’t be a priority over ridicule? Im positive you would get more results faster that way then trying to ridicule someone into having the same beliefs as you?

 

[SlyPokerCat]

Understood. I just see that as a never ending spiral downwards of pointing fingers with nothing gained but wasted time and increased aggression. I see a much more productive solution would be to focus on adjusting/updating the constitution to deny them the ability to instill their beliefs on others.
Not sure how that wouldn’t be a priority over ridicule? Im positive you would get more results faster that way then trying to ridicule someone into having the same beliefs as you?

You can't have discussions with these people. They went fully off the deep end.

While it would still piss many people off, a better discussion would have been, unless medically necessary, no abortions after say 24 weeks (since that is the boogie man the right has in regards to abortions. That people are just killing babies for fun right before birth). But no. They have to just outlaw this stuff and say ridiculous shit like they will cure rape so there won't need to be abortions from rape anymore.

They don't want to negotiate. They want to control people.

Texas should make a law next that dudes can't ejaculate unless it is specifically inside a woman for baby making. But they won't. While it would restrict gay dudes (something they would like) it would restrict themselves from ejaculating and wouldn't control women rights so they wouldn't be interested.

Those monsters deserve ridicule.

 

[ABM]

You can't have discussions with these people. They went fully off the deep end.

While it would still piss many people off, a better discussion would have been, unless medically necessary, no abortions after say 24 weeks (since that is the boogie man the right has in regards to abortions. That people are just killing babies for fun right before birth). But no. They have to just outlaw this stuff and say ridiculous shit like they will cure rape so there won't need to be abortions from rape anymore.

They don't want to negotiate. They want to control people.

Texas should make a law next that dudes can't ejaculate unless it is specifically inside a woman for baby making. But they won't. While it would restrict gay dudes (something they would like) it would restrict themselves from ejaculating and wouldn't control women rights so they wouldn't be interested.

Those monsters deserve ridicule.

Miss me yet?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I think states should ban marriages between different religions and beliefs. A Catholic shouldn't be allowed to marry a Baptist, a Muslim shouldn't be allowed to marry a Jew, and an atheist shouldn't be allowed to marry a presbyterian.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Let's try to keep the extrapolation to a minimum. All I'm saying here is that to claim the Supreme Court is restricting abortion rights is inaccurate. The Supreme Court is only saying that they don't have the right to prevent states from restricting abortion rights.

Now to be fair, I disagree with them. But I understand how their position is that they are preserving states' rights, even as the states restrict individuals' rights (or what is perceived as a right).

If in preserving an entity's rights, the government is responsible for the misuse thereof, then that means we must blame the government for all the racial epithets that are spewed by evil racist people using their freedom of speech for evil. I'm sorry, but that's not a conclusion I'm willing to draw.

If the result of you acting to remove restrictions on states is that those states automatically impose restrictions then you are choosing to impose those restrictions.

Let's try a cuter comparison.
Scar didn't kill Mufasa, he just restricted his right to hold on to the cliff. Whatever happens after that is no fault of his own...

Kinda silly.

If the result of your action is known and predetermined, then you are at fault for taking that action.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

You can't have discussions with these people. They went fully off the deep end.

While it would still piss many people off, a better discussion would have been, unless medically necessary, no abortions after say 24 weeks (since that is the boogie man the right has in regards to abortions. That people are just killing babies for fun right before birth). But no. They have to just outlaw this stuff and say ridiculous shit like they will cure rape so there won't need to be abortions from rape anymore.

They don't want to negotiate. They want to control people.

Texas should make a law next that dudes can't ejaculate unless it is specifically inside a woman for baby making. But they won't. While it would restrict gay dudes (something they would like) it would restrict themselves from ejaculating and wouldn't control women rights so they wouldn't be interested.

Those monsters deserve ridicule.

I am saying why bother? Unless you are referring to elected officials capable of making these changes and those are the ones not able to have a conversation with?

why even try to have a convo if the majority feels the same as you and a constitutional amendment can be made to lock your opinion in?

 

[SlyPokerCat]

I think states should ban marriages between different religions and beliefs. A Catholic shouldn't be allowed to marry a Baptist, a Muslim shouldn't be allowed to marry a Jew, and an atheist shouldn't be allowed to marry a presbyterian.

Cats will never marry dogs as much as you'd want that to happen.

 

[SlyPokerCat]

I am saying why bother? Unless you are referring to elected officials capable of making these changes and those are the ones not able to have a conversation with?

why even try to have a convo if the majority feels the same as you and a constitutional amendment can be made to lock your opinion in?

Because people taking human rights to healthcare away deserve ridicule. People pushing this bullshit need to know they suck.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

If the result of you acting to remove restrictions on states is that those states automatically impose restrictions then you are choosing to impose those restrictions.

Let's try a cuter comparison.
Scar didn't kill Mufasa, he just restricted his right to hold on to the cliff. Whatever happens after that is no fault of his own...

Kinda silly.

If the result of your action is known and predetermined, then you are at fault for taking that action.

The laws disagree with you though. You didnt respond to my analogy on this topic.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Because people taking human rights to healthcare away deserve ridicule. People pushing this bullshit need to know they suck.

Wouldnt amending the constitution to deny their ability to implement their beliefs be enough of a statement saying they are flat out wrong ?

 

[SlyPokerCat]

Wouldnt amending the constitution to deny their ability to implement their beliefs be enough of a statement saying they are flat out wrong ?

No. If someone pushes taking away human rights in healthcare, they deserve ridicule. Amending the constitution doesn't mean they can't try to change it to something sinister.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Texas should make a law next that dudes can't ejaculate unless it is specifically inside a woman for baby making. But they won't. While it would restrict gay dudes (something they would like) it would restrict themselves from ejaculating and wouldn't control women rights so they wouldn't be interested.

Those monsters deserve ridicule.

Simply make it illegal for women to refuse the advances of her husband. As the bible says. And every woman must be married if she wants to be a citizen with rights.

Outlawing birth control is already on the way...

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

No. If someone pushes taking away human rights in healthcare, they deserve ridicule. Amending the constitution doesn't mean they can't try to change it to something sinister.

To each their own. I am of the mindset that everyone should be allowed to think and believe what they want without ridicule. Once they act on their beliefs, then its out the window.
Id rather see productive methods to make things better for all. To me ridicule isn't going to change their thinking so its wasted energy and time.
Ill put my energy into making sure they cant make their beliefs a reality over ridicule.

 

[Phatguysrule]

The laws disagree with you though.

What law disagrees?

You didnt respond to my analogy on this topic.

What analogy?

 

[SlyPokerCat]

To each their own. I am of the mindset that everyone should be allowed to think and believe what they want without ridicule. Once they act on their beliefs, then its out the window.
Id rather see productive methods to make things better for all. To me ridicule isn't going to change their thinking so its wasted energy and time.
Ill put my energy into making sure they cant make their beliefs a reality over ridicule.

Good luck. They won't change. Ridicule it is.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Not true and the courts would not back that up.

if i told you to go kill someone and you did it. And then tried to blame me for it, the courts would throw out anything to do with that.

Thats what choice is all about. It doesn't matter what you are told. It matters what you do.
If nabisco told me to eat nothing but their junk food, could i sue them for my inevitable medical bills because they told me to eat their food?
Courts would throw my case out.
not understanding your logic on this at all. Sorry.

What law disagrees?
What analogy?

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Good luck. They won't change. Ridicule it is.

No luck needed. Simply a mindset.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Not true and the courts would not back that up.

if i told you to go kill someone and you did it. And then tried to blame me for it, the courts would throw out anything to do with that.

Thats what choice is all about. It doesn't matter what you are told. It matters what you do.
If nabisco told me to eat nothing but their junk food, could i sue them for my inevitable medical bills because they told me to eat their food?
Courts would throw my case out.
not understanding your logic on this at all. Sorry.

If you told me to kill somebody, and you gave me the ability to do so (as the supreme court gave the states the ability to restrict the rights to citizens) and I did it, you would then be charged as well.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

If you told me to kill somebody, and you gave me the ability to do so (as the supreme court gave the states the ability to restrict the rights to citizens) and I did it, you would then be charged as well.

Please explain how you come to this conclusion?

giving someone the ability is super grey.
If i handed you a gun and told you to kill someone and you did so, the courts would NOT hold me responsible( as long as it was a legal gun and the individual i gave the gun to has no criminal history preventing him from possessing a gun of course).

I know of no law or court that would agree with you.
Another analogy: if i drove you to the fremont bridge told you to jump off and you did so, Am i on the hook for manslaughter?