TankHankerous
Well-Known Member
I'm not religious. And by the way, enough with the word salad- it's off-putting and insincere babble won't get you places
Is a reversal of Roe v Wade decision next?
- Thread starter CunningCanuk
- Start date
TankHankerous
Well-Known Member
Referring to human beings as "cats" is something out of a beatnik folk novel. Gimme a break, Daddio!
***Snaps fingers
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Sanctimonious has negative connotations, which I fully intended. The second sentence made no sense. It was forced and phony as well. You are just a jackass that can type.
It's fine with me if you want to continue on with your intellectually dishonest posts. It was how Bugeye eventually made it to the banned list. I don't think he could help himself any more than you seem to be able to.
Anyway, carry on with your word salad. Maybe one day you will by accident make sense.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
He couldn't call you human, so cat was appropriate. As in pussy, perhaps.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
actually,
only the Jesus Taliban uses sanctity as a political idea.
So as to your claim not to align with the most virulent christoFascists …
abyss13
Well-Known Member
By why take the pill when you can kill a baby two or three times a year, and be proud of your daughter.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
wrong. you can do it every cycle which is monthly. that would be 12 babies.
perhaps you should put a condom on and learn about reproductive..only a moron would think women go 'in heat' like dogs a few times a year?
they ween their babies on lemons and he sure showed me
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
actually that is a drag queen recoiling in disgust. I’ve been waiting for the moment, and that was it.they ween their babies on lemons and he sure showed me
replace slippery slope argument with drag queen
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Yes, those who are against women's rights are disgusting. We know this from the decades of disgusting images and false claims they made over the years. Thanks for confirming this hasn't changed. Gross.
What HAS changed is that many people who were pro-women's rights and living rent free under the assumption that the Roe decision was the end of the story -- have become energized. They thought your kind were just helpless raging lunatics, which was true except for the helpless part. I'll hand it the anti-women's choice movement. Your kind were effective activists. Knowing that they were a minority, they aligned themselves with other minority interests to defeat the will of the majority. Your kind showed up in proportionally greater numbers and with other kinds of anti-democratic movement and white-power activists. Together they managed to scrape together a plurality in low-turnout elections. And you won. Well you won long enough to stack the SCOTUS with right wing radicals who overthrew Roe. And then in 2020, you did not win so that avenue is shut for now. The SCOTUS decision overturning Roe will probably be hailed as the second worst decision ever made by SCOTUS, but that is for the future to decide. For now, it is up to the electorate to decide. That reckoning has begun. That and a reckoning for your Jan 6 conspirators in the anti-civil rights movement known as Trumpers. Public sympathy for your kind is wavering if not already in decline.
So, let's talk about Kansas. A deep red state that voted overwhelmingly to retain the right of a woman to choose. The anti abortion movement chose a primary election in which to insert an amendment that would allow the state to strike down the right of a woman to privacy. Because your kind know you can't win a majority of the people's agreement, your kind picked an election that was notorious for low turnout. Can you say "backfire"? Turnout was double the norm for a mid-term primary election. Your amendment went down in flames. It was defeated by double digit margins. lulz
This is all to say that the anti democratic movement has no chance in the long run. You can't win. In modern times has not been possible to defeat the will of the majority over the long haul. I realize your kind have guns. I realize that your kind are allied with violent and extremist white supremacists who would like nothing more than to slaughter people protesting against reducing women to a breeding chamber. I realize there will be blood because we've already seen what your kind are willing to do. Photos from Jan 6, for example. This all puts your assertion of "pro-life" into the realm of other lies made by your anti democratic movement. You aren't pro-life, you are just following a theocratic authoritarian doctrine that cares not about life.
Last edited:
HGCC
Well-Known Member
People are hungry, we are prepping for famine folks. Gotta eat something.
Nothing could be done.
xtsho
Well-Known Member
I was raised as a fucking Jehovah's Witness. I was giving talks in front of the congregation inside the Kingdom Halls back in the 70's. It sucked and I hated it. They had me knocking on doors peddling the Watchtower and Awake publications.
I left that cult when I was around 12 years old. Then I started smoking pot and I haven't looked back.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I dated someone who had been in “the religion”. Shit goes deep.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
too bad they weren't available when your mother got pregnant...
i've had enough sanctimony from a bunch of hypocritical assholes who do fucked up shit six and three quarters days a week, and expect dropping a few dollars in a collection plate and sleeping through a sermon to wash them clean of their "sins"...
you seem to think that everyone getting an abortion is some rich white girl in the suburbs who can't keep her panties on and has 3 or 4 a year...i doubt you'll read this...and i doubt you'll believe it if you do, but i presented the facts to you, if you shit on them, that's on you...
https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/the-demographics-of-abortion-in-america/
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Looking back then going forward.
Remember when ALL of the justices who chose to strike down the right of a woman to chose were questioned in the Senate before the votes that made them Supreme Court Judges? Every one of them said the same thing about Roe that they are saying regarding contraception. They said Roe v Wade was stare decis, a legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent. Roe was settled precedent. This left them wiggle room to overturn it but mouthed platitudes about its legal status as a precedent at the time. As we know, they overturned Roe.
Going forward:
What Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority included the following: "nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,"
Oh really. When have we heard that before. Why would they stop with abortion? By their own actions, it's clear that nothing is stopping them from overturning precedents that protect people's access to contraceptives as a right. Then again, in that same ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate concurring opinion urging his colleagues to reconsider landmark decisions that recognized rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships." So, yeah, they are considering it.
And so, Congress passed a bill to protect the right of all in the US to access to contraception. Republican senators blocked its passage using the filibuster
www.cbsnews.com
In the House, the vote was 228-195. All 195 "no" votes came from Republicans.
So, here we are. 195 out of 203 Republican congressmen oppose protecting the rights of people to contraception under federal law. We know their arguments. "states rights", "people using them are sluts", "God says" and all that. This line of thinking extends to many more issues as well.
Then again, we have that kind of thinking already being pushed in this forum:
Remember when ALL of the justices who chose to strike down the right of a woman to chose were questioned in the Senate before the votes that made them Supreme Court Judges? Every one of them said the same thing about Roe that they are saying regarding contraception. They said Roe v Wade was stare decis, a legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent. Roe was settled precedent. This left them wiggle room to overturn it but mouthed platitudes about its legal status as a precedent at the time. As we know, they overturned Roe.
Going forward:
What Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority included the following: "nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,"
Oh really. When have we heard that before. Why would they stop with abortion? By their own actions, it's clear that nothing is stopping them from overturning precedents that protect people's access to contraceptives as a right. Then again, in that same ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate concurring opinion urging his colleagues to reconsider landmark decisions that recognized rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships." So, yeah, they are considering it.
And so, Congress passed a bill to protect the right of all in the US to access to contraception. Republican senators blocked its passage using the filibuster
House passes bill to protect access to birth control in latest answer to Supreme Court
Eight Republicans joined every Democrat in voting in favor of the bill, while 195 Republicans voted against it.
www.cbsnews.com
In the House, the vote was 228-195. All 195 "no" votes came from Republicans.
So, here we are. 195 out of 203 Republican congressmen oppose protecting the rights of people to contraception under federal law. We know their arguments. "states rights", "people using them are sluts", "God says" and all that. This line of thinking extends to many more issues as well.
Then again, we have that kind of thinking already being pushed in this forum:
They have to be stopped.
Last edited:
xtsho
Well-Known Member
It's some serious shit. You don't know unless you've lived it. There are documentaries but they don't even come close to describing the level of control that organization has on it's followers. It tears families apart without mercy or a second thought.
It's a cult 100%
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I do not pretend to fully empathize. But I was exposed to much milder cultish behavior, which gave me a basis from which I could extrapolate when I heard her tales of frank oppression by the church, which ignored her husband’s growing abusive behaviors.
It is the halfway-cult thing my congregation got wrong. Effective cult practice is to engage the target person in a swirl of sentiment, never leaving time for reality checks. I had long times on my own during which the odd “wait a minute” thought would mess up their program.