posted by Heretic
While I admire your willingness to stick to the QAnon-approved line of bullshit pertaining to what happened, I believe the correct way to refer to the dumb NPC who got blasted is "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".

oh I agree, trespassing or unlawful entry can be met with deadly force, it was a chance she took.

Likewise resisting arrest can be deadly as well. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Exactly. That's the name of the game which makes the leak last week a non story to me in terms of who leaked it. 

If you think an unprecedented leak of enormous magnitude from the most sacrosanct institution in the nation is a non-story, I don't know what to say. 

posted by majorspark

You are the one wetting yourself about this sinister bill being debated.  Surely you can provide me with one line item on this bill that you have determined is completely terrible. You by your own claims are already well versed.

Senate Bill 123 and House Bill 598. 

The White House is encouraging protests outside of judges homes. If this were the other way there would be claims of terrorism. Just like beetle juice, the mayor of one of the deadliest cities in America, calling for a call to arms. But both sides!!

Psaki: “We certainly continue to encourage [protests] outside of judges’ homes”
pic.twitter.com/nLJw2yXocH

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) May 10, 2022

posted by iclfan2

The White House is encouraging protests outside of judges homes. If this were the other way there would be claims of terrorism. Just like beetle juice, the mayor of one of the deadliest cities in America, calling for a call to arms. But both sides!!

Psaki: “We certainly continue to encourage [protests] outside of judges’ homes”
pic.twitter.com/nLJw2yXocH

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) May 10, 2022

They have little regard for others, whether it is an unborn human, or a born human with a differing opinion.  If it is outside their zone of convenience, look out.  They have no class, and no respect, which you see filtering through segments of society.  They've lost the debate; screaming and whining and intimidation and cancelling and violent uprisings are sure to be expected. 

What did Schumer think was going to happen with that vote?

posted by iclfan2

What did Schumer think was going to happen with that vote?

The same thing House Republicans did when they voted 63 times on abolishing Obamacare?

They have no legal or constitutional argument of merit, so they are already moving to the false narratives that the court is going to go after lgbtqxyz'ers, and interracial marriage, and every other thing they they can sling on the wall in order to simply scare people into voting for these Marxists. 

posted by QuakerOats

They have no legal or constitutional argument of merit, so they are already moving to the false narratives that the court is going to go after lgbtqxyz'ers, and interracial marriage, and every other thing they they can sling on the wall in order to simply scare people into voting for these Marxists. 

Maybe don't do stupid stuff like attacking Roe v Wade and giving them the chance?

posted by QuakerOats

They have no legal or constitutional argument of merit, so they are already moving to the false narratives that the court is going to go after lgbtqxyz'ers, and interracial marriage, and every other thing they they can sling on the wall in order to simply scare people into voting for these Marxists. 

The court is already going after legal precedent - after justices nominated said they would not.  Why shouldn’t they?

Where will all these Christian conservatives be in 5 years when there is an influx of brown and black babies with no homes?  Nowhere to be found.

posted by kizer permanente

Maybe don't do stupid stuff like attacking Roe v Wade and giving them the chance?

They are ruling on a case before them; they don't go looking for controversial issues just to displease leftists.

If protecting human life is upsetting to some, they need figure out how to deal with such a horrific position. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

The court is already going after legal precedent - after justices nominated said they would not.  Why shouldn’t they?

Where will all these Christian conservatives be in 5 years when there is an influx of brown and black babies with no homes?  Nowhere to be found.

We've already dispelled this hyperbole.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Where will all these Christian conservatives be in 5 years when there is an influx of brown and black babies with no homes?  Nowhere to be found.

I don't know.  But you people keep telling us how racist these people are yet they want the black and brown population to increase.  Think of all the future democrat voters this could generate.

posted by majorspark

I don't know.  But you people keep telling us how racist these people are yet they want the black and brown population to increase.  Think of all the future democrat voters this could generate.

You really just need to convince them that the fetus identifies as a 5-yr old, ready to start their indoctrination.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

The court is already going after legal precedent - after justices nominated said they would not.  Why shouldn’t they?

Where will all these Christian conservatives be in 5 years when there is an influx of brown and black babies with no homes?  Nowhere to be found.

That question was already asked and answered earlier on this thread.

So your position is we should keep killing more black and brown babies? That’s kind of the original intent of PP and Margarette Singer and rather racist.

posted by jmog

That question was already asked and answered earlier on this thread.

So your position is we should keep killing more black and brown babies? That’s kind of the original intent of PP and Margarette Singer and rather racist.

She was the complete package:  racist, eugenicist, and femi-Nazi.  And apparently loved by leftists. 

posted by jmog

That question was already asked and answered earlier on this thread.

So your position is we should keep killing more black and brown babies? That’s kind of the original intent of PP and Margarette Singer and rather racist.

I think Margaret Sanger was staunchly anti-abortion.  Not that I care, but if so, she’s a bad example for your argument.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/i-criticized-blm-then-i-was-fired?s=r

Well worth the read

Imagine living in one of the most violent cities in America and you voted for this idiot. 

In Texas, reading any damn book I choose. No banning of books or thought. Ever. pic.twitter.com/zGFN3dxvNx

— Lori Lightfoot (@LoriLightfoot) May 14, 2022

posted by iclfan2

Imagine living in one of the most violent cities in America and you voted for this idiot. 

In Texas, reading any damn book I choose. No banning of books or thought. Ever. pic.twitter.com/zGFN3dxvNx

— Lori Lightfoot (@LoriLightfoot) May 14, 2022

She’s as stupid as the fucktards that do want books like that or Maus banned.

I don’t want to live in Chicago ever.  I feel the same way about anywhere I’ve ever visited in Texas.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I think Margaret Sanger was staunchly anti-abortion.  Not that I care, but if so, she’s a bad example for your argument.

Margaret Sanger was staunchly for abortion for all black and brown babies and was the founder of Planned Parenthood.

posted by jmog

Margaret Sanger was staunchly for abortion for all black and brown babies and was the founder of Planned Parenthood.

from her wiki page

Margaret Sanger opposed abortion and sharply distinguished it from birth control. She believed that the latter is a fundamental right of women and the former is a shameful crime.^{[135]: 36–37 [23]: 125} In 1916, when she opened her first birth control clinic, she was employing harsh rhetoric against abortion. Flyers she distributed to women exhorted them in all capitals: "Do not kill, do not take life, but prevent."^[136]: 155 Sanger's patients at that time were told "that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but it was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."^[16]: 217 Sanger consistently distanced herself from any calls for legal access to abortion, arguing that legal access to contraceptives would remove the need for abortion.^[137] Ann Hibner Koblitz has argued that Sanger's anti-abortion stance contributed to the further stigmatization of abortion and impeded the growth of the broader reproductive rights movement.^{[138]: 182–188}

While Margaret Sanger condemned abortion as a method of family limitation, she was not opposed to abortion intended to save a woman's life.^[139] Furthermore, in 1932, Margaret Sanger directed the Clinical Research Bureau to start referring patients to hospitals for therapeutic abortions when indicated by an examining physician.^{[23]: 300–301} She also advocated for birth control so that the pregnancies that led to therapeutic abortions could be prevented in the first place.^[140]

posted by geeblock

from her wiki page

Margaret Sanger opposed abortion and sharply distinguished it from birth control. She believed that the latter is a fundamental right of women and the former is a shameful crime.^{[135]: 36–37 [23]: 125} In 1916, when she opened her first birth control clinic, she was employing harsh rhetoric against abortion. Flyers she distributed to women exhorted them in all capitals: "Do not kill, do not take life, but prevent."^[136]: 155 Sanger's patients at that time were told "that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but it was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."^[16]: 217 Sanger consistently distanced herself from any calls for legal access to abortion, arguing that legal access to contraceptives would remove the need for abortion.^[137] Ann Hibner Koblitz has argued that Sanger's anti-abortion stance contributed to the further stigmatization of abortion and impeded the growth of the broader reproductive rights movement.^{[138]: 182–188}

While Margaret Sanger condemned abortion as a method of family limitation, she was not opposed to abortion intended to save a woman's life.^[139] Furthermore, in 1932, Margaret Sanger directed the Clinical Research Bureau to start referring patients to hospitals for therapeutic abortions when indicated by an examining physician.^{[23]: 300–301} She also advocated for birth control so that the pregnancies that led to therapeutic abortions could be prevented in the first place.^[140]

This is total BS, fake news 

posted by jmog

Margaret Sanger was staunchly for abortion for all black and brown babies and was the founder of Planned Parenthood.

I know she was a starter of planned parrnthood  She was against abortion, so she’s not a good example here.

posted by jmog

That question was already asked and answered earlier on this thread.

So your position is we should keep killing more black and brown babies? That’s kind of the original intent of PP and Margarette Singer and rather racist.

What a false argument. You know better. No one is really in favor of just killing babies and if they are, they are just as extreme as the crazy no exceptions crowd here. 

It is having the option, if needed, to terminate the pregnancy with the discussion with their doctor, not having the government telling women what they can and cannot do. 

I'm still wondering what people here think of the Ohio bills being debated.