Politics Please say rock bottom is getting close (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
BlazerBender said:
I know. And im conflicted on that one as well. To me, having the federal government say one way or another leaves no room for personal belief aNd is very much fascist to force one way on all.

To me, the beauty of our country is our individual state freedom. So if enough people dont think/believe like me, I am able to move to an area with more like minded people, without either side dictating their beliefs to the other. The more control we give the federal government, the closer we get to fascism. The more we lean towards individual states’ rights, the more we maintain the ability to to allow all to have their own beliefs.
Do I believe abortion should be illegal? No. But who am i to tell others who think its bad, that they cant move to an aRea with like minded people and vote for their community to outlaw abortion? Its not my community. My community has laws i agree with on the subject. And their community has laws that agree with what they believe.

I don't see a problem with that. But i don't see everything.
Click to expand...
Restricting government intervention allows maximum freedom. Each person can choose for themselves what do do with their own body, which impacts no other people.

Anything else is government overreach.
 
I get what everyone saying, but isn't roe vs wade a perfect example of giving the choice over to the states?
Lets say roe vs wade went the opposite direction. It would be 7 people telling hundreds of millions that no abortions are allowed.
What if 7 people said that no one in the country can marry anyone outside of their own race?
 
Last edited:
SlyPokerDog said:
I can understand the Abortion/Roe v Wade debate. I may not agree with one side but I can clearly understand their argument.

Please explain to me how not allowing people to get married based on the color of their skin isn't just plain hateful racism? Please explain how it's a state's right to allow white & white to marry, and black & black to marry, but not white & black?

I could maybe understand the argument that state A says no one can be married, or everyone over the age of 18 but under the age of 40 has to be married. I wouldn't agree with it but I could understand it.

How are states wanting to decide who can be married based on skin colors not racist as fuck?
Click to expand...
Ummm... do you see anyone in this thread saying that it's not racist and evil?
 
BlazerBender said:
I get what everyone saying, but isn't roe vs wade a perfect example of giving the choice over to the states?
Lets say roe vs wade went the opposite direction. It would be 7 people telling hundreds of millions that no abortions are allowed.
What if 7 people said that no one in the country can marry anyone outside of their own race?
Click to expand...
I'm fine with 7 people granting people more rights. I'm not ok with 7 people restricting people's rights.
 
Phatguysrule said:
I'm fine with 7 people granting people more rights. I'm not ok with 7 people restricting people's rights.
Click to expand...

Giving that choice to seven people, it goes both ways or no way though. It doesn't matter what you are okay with. Handing our choice to them means giving up control, regardless of how they vote, does it not?
 
A place I never heard of, The Village, Oklahoma, elected as mayor an out gay man who had served on the city council five years. He was forced to resign due to constant threats, followed everywhere he went, by Christian Republicans.
 
BlazerBender said:
Giving that choice to seven people, it goes both ways or no way though. It doesn't matter what you are okay with. Handing our choice to them means giving up control, regardless of how they vote, does it not?
Click to expand...
That's not their job. Their job is to protect individual rights from government abuse.

There is a reason they have never restricted individual rights before now. They aren't supposed to. They have been corrupted, and our response needs to be swift and firm. Each Justice is going to have to lose power and prestige.

We need more justices and they need to be more regularly appointed.
 
Phatguysrule said:
That's not their job. Their job is to protect individual rights from government abuse.

There is a reason they have never restricted individual rights before. They aren't supposed to.
Click to expand...
Their job is to protect individual and states rights.

The Supreme Court is not restricting any individual's rights. They are, however, granting states the freedom to restrict individuals' rights.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Their job is to protect individual and states rights.

The Supreme Court is not restricting any individual's rights. They are, however, granting states the freedom to restrict individuals' rights.
Click to expand...
Same thing. Giving somebody the right to kill somebody is the same as killing them yourself.

That's abuse of the power they've been granted, and why it's never been done before.
 
Phatguysrule said:
That's not their job. Their job is to protect individual rights from government abuse.

There is a reason they have never restricted individual rights before now. They aren't supposed to. They have been corrupted, and our response needs to be swift and firm. Each Justice is going to have to lose power and prestige.

We need more justices and they need to be more regularly appointed.
Click to expand...

agreed we need more judges and term limits. But as it stands this is what it is and it cant currently it go both ways until the system is changed. The point is, we currently have a system that is close to fascism already. 7 people who can remain in power until they die get to dictate the rights of all.

Phatguysrule said:
Same thing. Giving somebody the right to kill somebody is the same as killing them yourself.

That's abuse of the power they've been granted, and why it's never been done before.
Click to expand...

Very much disagree. That would be the same as a person who sells a gun to someone who kills someone the gun seller is now no better than the person who killed with the gun.
To give the choice to the individual to kill doesn't mean the person giving the choice to the other is a killer and to give the choice to a other doesn’t mean they are a killer either until they act on that choice.
We all make choices. And we all live with the repercussions of bad choices. But to remove the ability to make the choice is, to me, unconstitutional. And fascist.
Providing choices is not the same as providing rights. I have the right to choose what i want. And depending on my choice i may forfeit future rights. But the choice should always be there for all, should it not?
 
No. I will not grant anyone the "choice" to take away my rights. Or to tell someone else to do so.
 
To the men out there. How would you feel if the Supreme Court ruled that states could decide individually whether you could get a vasectomy or not, how many children you could have, or if you could be arrested and jailed for doing those things in a neighboring state?
 
theprunetang said:
To the men out there. How would you feel if the Supreme Court ruled that states could decide individually whether you could get a vasectomy or not, how many children you could have, or if you could be arrested and jailed for doing those things in a neighboring state?
Click to expand...
There is no fucking argument here. And this is the same for women and their rights to their own body. Any differing opinion is just flat out wrong and evil. And you all want us to just accept it. Fuck off hard.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
So if my child drives his car poorly and injures someone, it's the same as me injuring that person?
Click to expand...
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.
 
theprunetang said:
To the men out there. How would you feel if the Supreme Court ruled that states could decide individually whether you could get a vasectomy or not, how many children you could have, or if you could be arrested and jailed for doing those things in a neighboring state?
Click to expand...

This is the point i am trying to make. Maybe not very well.
Currently this is the system we have and they could do exactly what you speak of. Shouldn't the system be changed? Instead of 7 people controlling everyones choices, let 50 different states figure it out on their own so there is no one blanket right or wrong dictated to all by 7 people? Or do you want it only when they agree with you and don't want it when they don't agree with you?

Not sure why this has to get personal with telling people to fuck off for simply discussing the options our current government has for legislating what is right and wrong for everyone?
No one has said anything is morally right or wrong. We, or I at least, am simply trying to discuss the legal options we have set up within our current government. No one is saying people shouldn't have rights.
It is possible to have a discussion about things one may not agree with without telling people to fuck off… just sayin..
 
Phatguysrule said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
BlazerBender said:
This is the point i am trying to make. Maybe not very well.
Currently this is the system we have and they could do exactly what you speak of. Shouldn't the system be changed? Instead of 7 people controlling everyones choices, let 50 different states figure it out on their own so there is no one blanket right or wrong dictated to all by 7 people? Or do you want it only when they agree with you and don't want it when they don't agree with you?
Click to expand...
No. The constitution places limits on the government's ability to restrict individuals. Any right protected in the constitution should be protected nation wide. No government body should be able to remove or restrict these individual rights without a constitutional amendment.

Meaning once the court rules to protect or grant an individual right, that ruling should be respected unless it is overturned by a constitutional amendment.
 
Phatguysrule said:
No. The constitution places limits on the government's ability to restrict individuals. Any right protected in the constitution should be protected nation wide. No government body should be able to remove or restrict these individual rights without a constitutional amendment.

Meaning once the court rules to protect or grant an individual right, that ruling should be respected unless it is overturned by a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

The point im trying to make seems to keep being missed.
Allowing these 7 people to grant is also allowing them to deny, if they see fit. If we allow them to make a choice one way then we allow them to make a choice another way. Its how it is. Its how its set up.
We have a system that anoints them the power to determine what is right and wrong. What constitutional amendment is there for abortion? Or are you saying we need one?

and if so, all we can do is follow the current laws/design until an amendment is approved, correct?
 
SlyPokerCat said:
It wouldn't surprise me if there were rules on how many kids people could have someday. That is something that has been done in other countries before.
Click to expand...
The right wants more kids. Ever expanding population of ignorant people to expand consumerism for the benefit of the monopolies.
 
BlazerBender said:
The point im trying to make seems to keep being missed.
Allowing these 7 people to grant is also allowing them to deny, if they see fit. If we allow them to make a choice one way then we allow them to make a choice another way. Its how it is. Its how its set up.
We have a system that anoints them the power to determine what is right and wrong. What constitutional amendment is there for abortion? Or are you saying we need one?

and if so, all we can do is follow the current laws/design until an amendment is approved, correct?
Click to expand...
There are many protections which should be protecting women's rights to abortion.

-4th Amendment protects against Search and Seizure
-5th Amendment protects from incriminating oneself
-8th Amendment Protections against Excessive Bail, Cruel and Unusual Punishment
-14th Amendment Protects rights against state infringements, defines citizenship, prohibits states from interfering with privileges and immunities, requires due process and equal protection, punishes states for denying vote, and disqualifies Confederate officials and debts

Amendment XIV
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
Click to expand...
The unborn are not covered by the constitution, but born or naturalized women ARE. And as such their rights are constitutionally protected over that of any unborn.

And HIPAA also prevents doctors from sharing this information, so the government has no legal way to know or enforce any restriction.

These radical judges have destroyed the respectability and legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and as such, it needs to be remade to more appropriately reflect the will of the people.
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
There are many protections which should be protecting women's rights to abortion.

-4th Amendment protects against Search and Seizure
-5th Amendment protects from incriminating oneself
-8th Amendment Protections against Excessive Bail, Cruel and Unusual Punishment
-14th Amendment Protects rights against state infringements, defines citizenship (the unborn are not citizens), prohibits states from interfering with privileges and immunities, requires due process and equal protection, punishes states for denying vote, and disqualifies Confederate officials and debts

And HIPAA also prevents doctors from sharing this information, so the government has no legal way to know or enforce any restriction.
Click to expand...

Almost all of those are open to interpretation and are not clear on abortion at all. Illegal search and seizure? Can you explain how that clearly relates to abortion, especially if the unborn is not a citizen?
Again. I am not saying I am against abortions.
I am saying lets not call people killers and evil for simply trying to understand and comply with the current laws in place.
To be for limited government and wanting to explore other potential options on how regulations should or should not happen, has nothing to do with fascism, racism or anything the original post that sparked this conversation inferred.
My point of contention in all of this is labelling projected opinions based on twisted words and misunderstood contexts.
Good healthy conversation so far IMO. :cheers:
 
BlazerBender said:
Illegal search and seizure? Can you explain how that clearly relates to abortion, especially if the unborn is not a citizen?
Click to expand...
Illegal search and seizure relates to a woman's personal information and property. It's her body, the government has not right to anything to do with it.
Click to expand...
Again. I am not saying I am against abortions.
I am saying lets not call people killers and evil for simply trying to understand and comply with the current laws in place.
To be for limited government and wanting to explore other potential options on how regulations should or should not happen, has nothing to do with fascism, racism or anything the original post that sparked this conversation inferred.
My point of contention in all of this is labelling projected opinions based on twisted words and misunderstood contexts.
Good healthy conversation so far IMO. :cheers:
Click to expand...

Removing rights to individuals that have already been decided to be protected is absolutely wrong. Especially when each of these justices already said before being given their position that prior rulings should be respected.

Being for limited government doesn't including removing rights from citizens during a state/federal pissing match. That's dishonest and corrupt to the point of autocratic, dictatorial, or authoritarian levels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
Phatguysrule said:
Removing rights to individuals that have already been decided to be protected is absolutely wrong. Especially when each of these justices already said before being given their position that prior rulings should be respected.

Being for limited government doesn't including removing rights from citizens during a state/federal pissing match. That's dishonest and corrupt to the point of autocratic, dictatorial, or authoritarian levels.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top