792 replies to this topic

[onbekende]

So, you're saying the problems are too big or too old to solve, we must continue fighting over them. I disagree.

.
Unsure to which line this is a reply, but to try and add to it: offcourse a fight it will be, as no single solution fits all.
.

Planned Parenthood is a good organization. I have absolutely no problem with them... until taxpayers are paying for their service. That is when all hell will rain down upon them. If they operated as a private business filling a need, they wouldn't have a problem. They just have a real problem asking for money to kill babies from the people that want the babies killed. It's not my responsibility to pay for it.

.
PP is a non-profit working under the (in)famous 501©(3) IRS code, they give myriad of family and parental related services including abortions. There only gov funding is thruw Medicaid reimbursements (non-abortion related). Go die on an actual hill instead of on one you imagined up.
.

There are many issues that can be easily solved if we just did what it takes to solve them. Take away the things that cause anger or fear about it, and you have the solution. I was extremely concerned about cannabis legalized in my state. I didn't know what it would do. Years later... it's done nothing but eliminate the arrests and jail terms. So, now I'm in favor of repealing all the stupid Federal laws that are on the books that are never enforced. States know what is best for their citizens. Small government is better government.

.

Sure everything can be solved easily with decisive actions agreed by singletons, its called Authoritarianism...

 

I am all for local goverment, up until its feasibility or scale restricts it to act on certain things. You got federal agencies cause the scale and challanges make usage of a national policy or agency the best choice.
.

 

How do you expect to come up with the solution to anything when the go-to conservative response is always anger and fear of change?

I'm not in the position to solve anything. I can only tell you what I believe would be the most acceptable path to a solution. It's entirely up to many more people that are all above my pay grade, and I'll support those that I feel will get us there. None of them are Socialists.

.
You most acceptable TO YOU. Sometimes your mind clears up to see that opposition to your viewpoints isn't just to anger you, but those clarity's are few.

 

And if you like nothing socialistic, I got an island for you...
.

Progressives are not interested in solutions. They are only interested in change... their change. When they can't change it, they will break it. No matter what the cost, and no matter who is harmed by it. Everything going on right now is the result of Progressive policies designed to break everything... the economy, immigration, energy, education, crime, inflation, elections... and the only two things left we have to stop it is the first two Constitutional Amendments that they have been trying to break for years, but that's not happening.

.

And Republicans only want to return to the good old days of whatever fantasy world their grandparents told them about.

 

As I have stated before, I am conservative in text-book definition. Change should and must be slow, but evolution and progress happens whetever you (or I) like it or not. Just digging your heels into the sand and start screaming cause the rest of us start finding greener pastures only makes you a "sour grape"

[Lysistrata]

There only gov funding is thruw Medicaid reimbursements (non-abortion related).

Planned Parenthood is the abortion business... without abortion they would have no business.

Medicaid is taxpayer money... which means taxpayer money is supporting the abortion business.

How is this any concern of a Belgian? 

[onbekende]

PP can only reimburse Medicaid $$ for non-abortion related services, they balance that by donations and actual patient revenue. I believe last numbers had it at like ~3% of total services rendered.

 

 

It is hardly a concern for me as a Belgian. It is a concern for me as a thinking human being feeling the need to shake a republican zombie from its ruse.

[Lysistrata]

PP can only reimburse Medicaid $$ for non-abortion related services

Planned Parenthood does not reimburse Medicaid for anything. Planned Parenthood takes money from Medicaid (taxpayers) to do their business... which is abortion. If you believe that taxpayers are not paying for their abortion business... we can find the Belgian an island.

 

Strange... this doesn't have a thing to do with The Coronavirus. 

[MWilson]

 

There only gov funding is thruw Medicaid reimbursements (non-abortion related).

Planned Parenthood is the abortion business... without abortion they would have no business.

Medicaid is taxpayer money... which means taxpayer money is supporting the abortion business.

How is this any concern of a Belgian? 

 

You really think that's the only thing PP does? Man, you really need to stop getting your news from entertainment outlets.

[Lysistrata]

You really think that's the only thing PP does?

You cut off the important part... "You really think that's the only thing PP does that makes money?"

That's a better question... Yes... that's the only thing PP does that makes money.

One of the most over-used skills of a Progressive, deceptive editing.

Man, you really need to stop getting your news from entertainment outlets.

Elon Musk just lit NBC, your favorite place, on fire...

"NBC basically saying Republicans are Nazi's..." "Same org that covered up Hunter Biden laptop story, had Harvey Weinstein story early and killed it, and built Matt Lauer his rape office. Lovely People."

[MWilson]

 

You really think that's the only thing PP does?

You cut off the important part... "You really think that's the only thing PP does that makes money?"

That's a better question... Yes... that's the only thing PP does that makes money.

One of the most over-used skills of a Progressive, deceptive editing.

 

 

Man, you really need to stop getting your news from entertainment outlets.

Elon Musk just lit NBC, your favorite place, on fire...

"NBC basically saying Republicans are Nazi's..." "Same org that covered up Hunter Biden laptop story, had Harvey Weinstein story early and killed it, and built Matt Lauer his rape office. Lovely People."

 

Again assuming where I get my news from, and you're wrong. Know why I'm not a republican? It's because I'm too smart for it.

[Lysistrata]

Know why I'm not a republican? It's because I'm too smart for it.

Cool, you win... all those smart Democrats will be reelected in November.

I'll be watching the returns on Fox News with all the stupid people.

[onbekende]

 

PP can only reimburse Medicaid $$ for non-abortion related services

Planned Parenthood does not reimburse Medicaid for anything. Planned Parenthood takes money from Medicaid (taxpayers) to do their business... which is abortion. If you believe that taxpayers are not paying for their abortion business... we can find the Belgian an island.

 

Strange... this doesn't have a thing to do with The Coronavirus.

 

They use Medicaid to lower the cost for the patients that visit, a kind of round-a-bout reimbursement if I may call it that.

 

And again, you may believe what you got told about PP, doesn't make it any more true. also, you started the PP tangent with a reference to activist judges and their rulings you disliked.

 

 

Know why I'm not a republican? It's because I'm too smart for it.

Cool, you win... all those smart Democrats will be reelected in November.

I'll be watching the returns on Fox News with all the stupid people.

 

mostly gullible, thou after a few decades the distinction kinde becomes a moot point.

[Lysistrata]

They use Medicaid to lower the cost for the patients that visit, a kind of round-a-bout reimbursement if I may call it that.   And again, you may believe what you got told about PP, doesn't make it any more true. also, you started the PP tangent with a reference to activist judges and their rulings you disliked.

It all means nothing now. If the Federal Government is no longer involved in abortion, as the leaked majority decision seems to reflect, it will be Planned Parenthood lobbying each individual state for their booty from now on. That will make a lot of people feel much better.

 

These weirdos that are losing their minds thinking they can change the court, and change it back, are wrong. An overturned issue from the Supreme Court cannot be overturned back. Congress can pass legislation, but it will not stand, because abortion is not the business of the Federal Government. They would have to take an entire new issue all the way back to the court, and from this ruling, the issue has no standing in Federal law. They will have to make their case to the individual voters in every individual state. To make it national again, they will have to win a Constitutional Amendment... which is extremely unlikely. Get used to it.

[onbekende]

These weirdos that are losing their minds thinking they can change the court, and change it back, are wrong. An overturned issue from the Supreme Court cannot be overturned back.

.
And who made you think that?
.

Get used to it.

.

Actually it is the US that will need to re-adjust to the new. Alito wants to "protect tradition" and "stop the inflamation" from Roe vs. Wade. He is gutting a 50y ruling coupled with renewed inflamation across the board, great job...

[Lysistrata]

And who made you think that?

The Supreme Court doesn't work like that. It's not a board of directors that sit around and decide when to turn on or off Constitutional Rights. There must be litigation to challenge the law, and it works up through the lower courts to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS will only hear cases that challenge a ruling under the U.S. Constitution. Now that abortion will no longer be considered a Constitutional Right, any challenge to state law will not hold standing with the SCOTUS and will be kicked back to the state as final.

 

Biden said yesterday that this ruling is "radical", when in reality, it was the 1973 ruling on Roe vs. Wade that was radical. That was when activist judges decided, on their own accord, to create a Constitutional Right to abortion, when none actually exists. It was wrong then, it's been wrong the entire time, and it's being corrected now.

 

This ruling does not make abortion illegal, as the liars wish to make the stupid believe... it grants back to the states the right to regulate abortion. It will no longer be protected as a Constitutional Right. It will now be under the purview of the American people, and Texas will do what they want, and California will do what they want... you know what I mean? The way Constitutional Republics work.

[onbekende]

I remarked upon your "An overturned issue from the Supreme Court cannot be overturned back." quote, but I guess you didn't mean it like that seeing your reply.

 

Anyway...

 

They actually did "turn ON" the constitutional right to abortion in '73, which the leak make seem that they will "turn OFF" it, for now. (to add to your litigation challange, it was challanged by Roe in '73, it could be re-challenged by new laws made presently). Heck the possible re-litigation will depend on how restrictive the new anti-abortion laws will be, not just on the timeline but also on how they will treat woman seeking it out-of-state.

 

Calling the SCOTUS court of '73 activist on a 7-2 line, btw the 2 dissenters were Rehnquist (ultra pro-state rights, R-Reagan) and White (hard to pin down, D-Kennedy) while the '22 court would likely be 5-4 seems just whimsical. Neither did the ruling make abortion absolute, there were a plethora of guidelines added. Heck the notion of Alito about it being not in your nations history is absolute bollocks, abortion is even written in the bible as applicable as long as the fetus was not moving (which they perceived as it receivingits soul) and was thus done thruwout the earlier centuries of USA history.

 

The ruling would open it to be made illegal, as over a dozen states have already promised with inactive laws in-place to be "turned ON" the moment this expected verdict drops.

 

And actually, the part of state rights comes from federalism, but I have no doubt you will miss that nuance aswell and start shouting I am a communist for stating that...

[Lysistrata]

They actually did "turn ON" the constitutional right to abortion in '73

There is no such thing as a "Constitutional Right to Abortion". It's simply not there, and it's crazy to believe that it ever was. The '73 activist judge court declared abortion was legal under the Constitutional Right of Privacy, which is total bullshit. If abortion is to be under the power of the Federal Government, they better make the move to a Constitutional Amendment. That is when the power over abortion would be properly transferred to the Government... from the people. Until then, States can do whatever their voters want them to do.

Calling the SCOTUS court of '73 activist on a 7-2 line, btw the 2 dissenters were Rehnquist (ultra pro-state rights, R-Reagan)

Democrats controlled Congress for decades following the Great Depression. Republicans didn't have much power at all until 1994, long after Ronald Reagan was President, and Reagan wasn't President until 1981, long after the '73 activist judges came down with their unconstitutional ruling. If you want to spin history at least try to color inside the lines.

[onbekende]

 

They actually did "turn ON" the constitutional right to abortion in '73

There is no such thing as a "Constitutional Right to Abortion". It's simply not there, and it's crazy to believe that it ever was. The '73 activist judge court declared abortion was legal under the Constitutional Right of Privacy, which is total bullshit. If abortion is to be under the power of the Federal Government, they better make the move to a Constitutional Amendment. That is when the power over abortion would be properly transferred to the Government... from the people. Until then, States can do whatever their voters want them to do.

.
You also don't have the Constitutional right to drive a car, so I guess we are just awaiting some "activist judges" to truely take that away...

Also, the 9th amendment pretty clearly delines a "not being in the constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional" rational. Cause you know, you can't really write everything down.
.

 

Calling the SCOTUS court of '73 activist on a 7-2 line, btw the 2 dissenters were Rehnquist (ultra pro-state rights, R-Reagan)

Democrats controlled Congress for decades following the Great Depression. Republicans didn't have much power at all until 1994, long after Ronald Reagan was President, and Reagan wasn't President until 1981, long after the '73 activist judges came down with their unconstitutional ruling. If you want to spin history at least try to color inside the lines.

.
Offcourse you have lived it while I not only wasn't born, I haven't received such detailed USA history in school, my knowledge is thus more internet based.

That said, of the '73 court, the Burger Court, had following people:

• Warren E. Burger, Chief SCOTUS, '69 by Nixon ®. Formerly a seat opened up by former Chief Earl Warren ('53, Eisenhouwer R) retiring and openin the chance for Lyndon B Johnson (D) to nominate a replacement but a 64D-36R senate filibustered it into the lap of Nixon whom nominated Burger and he assended by 74-3 (in a 58D-42R senate).
• William Orville Douglas, '39 by Roosevelt (D). Noted as possibly the most liberal SCOTUS to date.
• William J. Brennan Jr., '57 by Eisenhouwer ® - recess appointment. Noted as a D pick to substitude a D-SCOTUS (Minton), only McCarthy-R voted against him.
• Potter Stewart, '59 Eisenhouwer ® - recess appointment. Received a 70-17 senate vote with the 17 being Southern Democrats (pre-switch).
• Byron White, '62 by Kennedy (D). As noted a dissenting vote on Roe.
• Thurgood Marshall, '67 by Johnson (D). Voted in by a 69-11 senate, of which 10 dissenting votes were Democratic ones while of the 20 non-voters were 17 Democrats, aka 37D/32R vs 10D/1R.
• Harry Blackmun, '70 by Nixon ®. Confirmed by a 94-0 senate vote. Third person nominated for the Fortas ('65 by Johnson) seat after 2 others were not witheld: Haynsworth (45 19D/26R vs 55 38D/17R defeat due to pro-segregation rulings) and Carswell (45-51 defeat with 38D/13R for 51 due to pro-segregation and rascist ideology in his past).
• Lewis F. Powell Jr, '71 by Nixon ®. Taking another D-SCOTUS seat (Black) by 89-1 senate vote.
• William Rehnquist, '71 by Nixon ®. A seat vacated by Harlan (Eisenhower-R) and noted to be extremely conservative, a 68-26 senate vote admitted him to SCOTUS. As noted a dissenting vote on Roe.

I count 6 R's, 4 by Nixon! Even by ideology the '73 court was 3 left, 6 right (link). If you want to colour lines, actually know the were awfully red when Roe dropped.

[Lysistrata]

Cause you know, you can't really write everything down.

Yes you can. 

[onbekende]

You do know that the US has Common Law right? And one of its tenents being "Stare decisis", or precedents in non-legal linga.

 

If you wanna go for a "everything written down" franchise, aka Civil Law, you gonna have to europeanise >_>

[Theophilos]

 

And who made you think that?

The Supreme Court doesn't work like that. It's not a board of directors that sit around and decide when to turn on or off Constitutional Rights. There must be litigation to challenge the law, and it works up through the lower courts to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS will only hear cases that challenge a ruling under the U.S. Constitution. Now that abortion will no longer be considered a Constitutional Right, any challenge to state law will not hold standing with the SCOTUS and will be kicked back to the state as final.

 

Biden said yesterday that this ruling is "radical", when in reality, it was the 1973 ruling on Roe vs. Wade that was radical. That was when activist judges decided, on their own accord, to create a Constitutional Right to abortion, when none actually exists. It was wrong then, it's been wrong the entire time, and it's being corrected now.

 

This ruling does not make abortion illegal, as the liars wish to make the stupid believe... it grants back to the states the right to regulate abortion. It will no longer be protected as a Constitutional Right. It will now be under the purview of the American people, and Texas will do what they want, and California will do what they want... you know what I mean? The way Constitutional Republics work.

 

 

Of course it does, it’s called precedent. It’s a handy on/off switch of legal fiction that allows exactly that - turning on (less so off, but hey a new day a new surprise). At some point there will again be a different majority, and that majority will, by way of precedent change the relevant interpretation of the US Constitution. Fairly straightforward to be honest.

 

It is a ‘radical’ ruling, it removed protection of a women’s right to independently decide about her own body. That qualifies as radical by any standard. Removing this basic protection goes against basic principles of rational thought, as it is a human right, albeit limited to women. And Deo gratis for that, at least as men we don’t have to go through the pain of labour.

 

If by American people, you refer to American women, then one would think this wouldn’t be an issue, but that’s not the case is it. In fact that is not how a republic works, res publica or politeia or commonwealth or what have you, is meant to decide on issues that are in the common sphere, that are part of the social (not socialist mind you) fabric of the community… the woman’s body is clearly out side of such a sphere, it is sacrosanct and belongs to each individual woman, which the rest of us have to respect and not interfere with under any circumstance what so ever.

You do know that the US has Common Law right? And one of its tenents being "Stare decisis", or precedents in non-legal linga.

 

If you wanna go for a "everything written down" franchise, aka Civil Law, you gonna have to europeanise >_>

 

Betsy sssssssh, dont give them ideas, it’s bother taking a state law exam already as is… what with all the codes you need to memorise for that one occasion >.< Don’t be mean now

[Lysistrata]

at least as men we don’t have to go through the pain of labour.

 Showed your hand. That's a dead giveaway. It's labor here in the U.S.

 

This is not an issue of abortion... if a woman can get one or when. This is an issue of how, or who, has the power to regulate it.

Here in the USA, we have a constitution designed to limit the power of the Federal Government. Power to the Federal Government is allowed to occur by consent of the states. What is not specifically given to the Federal Government, remains with the states.

 

The power to regulate abortion has never been offered to the Federal Government. It's none of their business. Pretty damn simple.

[Theophilos]

 

at least as men we don’t have to go through the pain of labour.

 Showed your hand. That's a dead giveaway. It's labor here in the U.S.

 

This is not an issue of abortion... if a woman can get one or when. This is an issue of how, or who, has the power to regulate it.

Here in the USA, we have a constitution designed to limit the power of the Federal Government. Power to the Federal Government is allowed to occur by consent of the states. What is not specifically given to the Federal Government, remains with the states.

 

The power to regulate abortion has never been offered to the Federal Government. It's none of their business. Pretty damn simple.

 

 

ROFLMAO. That’s your argument? That I’m not a citizen of US. That’s not an argument, that’s silliness.

 

Of course it is, anything else is pure hypocrisy and nothing more. The body of a woman belongs to her, the Federal government should protect that as a human right if a woman’s liberty to ‘own’ her bods is threatened. Pure and simple, and the only decent and civilised thing to do.