Roe V Wade overturned!!! Leaked, SCOTUS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED

[wiffleball 4,640]

1 hour ago, TimmySmith said:

So it becomes a child at 20 weeks.  Got it!  

as I've said before, simply look up the term blastocyst.

[craftsman 1,045]

36 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

as I've said before, simply look up the term blastocyst.

One of our liberal supreme court justices admittedly doesn't know what a woman is and you are going to throw that at her? Hasn't she already exclaimed that she is not a biologist? 

And yeah, abortion is synonymous with killing children.  

[TimmySmith 2,782]

7 minutes ago, craftsman said:

And yeah, abortion is synonymous with killing children.  

Killing humans actually. That humans are less important until they age is their sad argument.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

5 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Yeah so states can make it more strict, but not less.  State’s rights!

That sounds exactly like minimum wage.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

5 hours ago, TimHauck said:

I kinda wish the GC was around during the civil war to see everyone here claiming it was about state’s rights, and only cdub and iam90sbaby admitting it was about slavery.

Not really.  UNLIKE abortion, rights of freedom were guaranteed in the constitution.  Essentially what happened was that black people were given rights they were entitled to and the South was forced to uphold the constitution.  They wanted to succeed, to avoid that.  Not surprising that the Democrats felt that way.  Anyway, that wasn't a "States Rights" issue, that was the states not adhering to the constitution.  Got any more stupid analogies?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

5 hours ago, TimHauck said:

I kinda wish the GC was around during the civil war to see everyone here claiming it was about state’s rights, and only cdub and iam90sbaby admitting it was about slavery.

I wonder what you would have been lying about then. Probably that the war was about slavery. Wasn't about states rights either, but it was closer to that. 

[TimHauck 1,800]

18 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Not really.  UNLIKE abortion, rights of freedom were guaranteed in the constitution.  Essentially what happened was that black people were given rights they were entitled to and the South was forced to uphold the constitution.  They wanted to succeed, to avoid that.  Not surprising that the Democrats felt that way.  Anyway, that wasn't a "States Rights" issue, that was the states not adhering to the constitution.  Got any more stupid analogies?

Uh oh, paging @Horseman again, I know he claims the Civil War was about state’s rights 

[craftsman 1,045]

1 minute ago, TimmySmith said:

I wonder what you would have been lying about then. Probably that the war was about slavery. Wasn't about states rights either, but it was closer to that. 

Liberals would never want to go back and look at the civil war because they would then be faced with the reality of how many straight white males lost life and limb trying to free black people.

[listen2me 23 1,542]

This is one issue you can call me a centrist on if you want.  I give no shlts.  If the left is overwhelming filled with irresponsible people who get pregnant and can't take care of the kid or don't want them, then go for it.  I don't care.  

[Gepetto 987]

5 hours ago, TimHauck said:

I kinda wish the GC was around during the civil war to see everyone here claiming it was about state’s rights, and only cdub and iam90sbaby admitting it was about slavery.

You're wrong as usual.  Do a google search. 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jun/25/gavin-mcinnes/tweet-civil-war-was-about-secession-not-slavery/ 

[Horseman 1,514]

4 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Uh oh, paging @Horseman again, I know he claims the Civil War was about state’s rights 

Link?  Do you ever get tired from being wrong all the time?

The Civil War happened because the South took Ft. Sumter and by controlling the major ports the North was going to starve to death.  Lincoln had no choice but to declare war. The truth isn't as feel good as the made up version where Lincoln just woke up one day and decided he'd go to war to free all the blacks.  No idea what your rambling on about state's rights is.  

[TimHauck 1,800]

25 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

That sounds exactly like minimum wage.

If the national law banned it after like 30 weeks this might make some sense.  Got any more stupid analogies?

[MDC 5,891]

33 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

You're wrong as usual.  Do a google search. 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jun/25/gavin-mcinnes/tweet-civil-war-was-about-secession-not-slavery/ 

Your link is a long detailed article about how the Civil War was primarily about slavery.  

[TimHauck 1,800]

37 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

You're wrong as usual.  Do a google search. 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jun/25/gavin-mcinnes/tweet-civil-war-was-about-secession-not-slavery/ 

Lol, did you even read the link you posted? As usual on here, thanks for proving my point!

[Gepetto 987]

13 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Lol, did you even read the link you posted? As usual on here, thanks for proving my point!

It was about the economics of slavery, not some moral high ground about slavery.

[jerryskids 5,206]

3 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

It was about the economics of slavery, not some moral high ground about slavery.

I generally agree with this take, although there were some religious groups which opposed slavery.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,646]

The civil war was about states rights. States right to own slaves. Everyone is right! All, take a bow! 

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

32 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

If the national law banned it after like 30 weeks this might make some sense.  Got any more stupid analogies?

LOL, you said they can make it more strict but not below, did you not?  Well, the Federal minimum wage is $11.25.  In NJ, it's $13.  They can choose to make it more strict and lower it $11.25, to match the Federal level, but they can't go lower.

Take the "L" and hush.

[TimHauck 1,800]

32 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

It was about the economics of slavery, not some moral high ground about slavery.

Thanks for proving my point!

[TimHauck 1,800]

1 hour ago, Horseman said:

Link?  Do you ever get tired from being wrong all the time?

The Civil War happened because the South took Ft. Sumter and by controlling the major ports the North was going to starve to death.  Lincoln had no choice but to declare war. The truth isn't as feel good as the made up version where Lincoln just woke up one day and decided he'd go to war to free all the blacks.  No idea what your rambling on about state's rights is.  

My apologies, I forgot you were rambling about this idiotic claim that it was about the South controlling all the ports (which I see has now changed to “‘the major”) and that the North would starve to death, even though as someone else pointed out when you said that the Civil War lasted 3 years and the North didn’t starve on their path to victory.

But you specifically said it wasn’t about slavery so as usual, you were and are wrong.

[TimHauck 1,800]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

LOL, you said they can make it more strict but not below, did you not?  Well, the Federal minimum wage is $11.25.  In NJ, it's $13.  They can choose to make it more strict and lower it $11.25, to match the Federal level, but they can't go lower.

Take the "L" and hush.

First of all, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 not $11.25.

And yet 30 states have a minimum wage of $9.00+, so the majority of states are well above the minimum and thus would likely be at that amount regardless of the federal law.

Which was my point In terms of abortion, if it was 30 weeks the majority of states would still be within that range.  A 15 week ban however would be more strict than over half of the states’ current laws.  

So yeah, it was a stupid analogy.

 

[Voltaire 4,559]

8 hours ago, TimHauck said:

I kinda wish the GC was around during the civil war to see everyone here claiming it was about state’s rights, and only cdub and iam90sbaby admitting it was about slavery.

Careful what you wish for. The country is as seriously divided now as it has been at any point since then. I'd suggest keeping the 'kinda' on the safe side of the fence.

[Voltaire 4,559]

SCOTUS crushed the Dems' favorite toy which is funny but it also threw them electoral life preserver with the abortion ruling. The Dems deserve to drown in this red wave, instead they have a legitimate campaign issue. If Michigan gets stuck with Gretchen Halfwhit and the two other witches returned to office, abortion will have a lot to do with it, it's because the GOP has tied itself to a losing issue with abortion. 

I guess it had to happen though. The Pro-Life people have been in the GOP forever, and when you align with them, you have to toss them some wins. 

 

[TimHauck 1,800]

10 hours ago, Voltaire said:

Careful what you wish for. The country is as seriously divided now as it has been at any point since then. I'd suggest keeping the 'kinda' on the safe side of the fence.

Maybe this was discussed in Justin’s thread, but what exactly would a civil war look like?   People knocking on doors asking for your political affiliation before shooting you?  Plus with so much of the country not really paying attention to politics at all, I just can’t see it happening.

If anything I could maybe see a revolt against the government or something if there’s another Great Depression, but I can’t imagine a civil war happening amongst the citizens.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

13 hours ago, TimHauck said:

First of all, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 not $11.25.

And yet 30 states have a minimum wage of $9.00+, so the majority of states are well above the minimum and thus would likely be at that amount regardless of the federal law.

Which was my point In terms of abortion, if it was 30 weeks the majority of states would still be within that range.  A 15 week ban however would be more strict than over half of the states’ current laws.  

So yeah, it was a stupid analogy.

 

Is it a stupid analogy because you proved my point, thus making your original point moot?  You see, because you just gave a perfect example of a state being even closer to the Federal minimum wage than NJ.  Hence, more strict, but not lower.

I'll await a further remark making your point even LESS valid.

 

[Voltaire 4,559]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Maybe this was discussed in Justin’s thread, but what exactly would a civil war look like?   People knocking on doors asking for your political affiliation before shooting you?  Plus with so much of the country not really paying attention to politics at all, I just can’t see it happening.

If anything I could maybe see a revolt against the government or something if there’s another Great Depression, but I can’t imagine a civil war happening amongst the citizens.

Potentially hit-and-run small scale terror strikes against soft government targets then hiding in the civilian population while avoiding the military. I don't want to think to hard about it. If the country finds can't stay together, rather than violence, the best case would amicable and mutual national divorce of different factions. 

[Baker Boy 1,485]

15 hours ago, TimHauck said:

If the national law banned it after like 30 weeks this might make some sense.  Got any more stupid analogies?

A child can live outside the womb at 30 weeks, this is murder.

[TimHauck 1,800]

35 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

A child can live outside the womb at 30 weeks, this is murder.

Agree, that was my point to why it should be illegal everywhere at that point

[TimHauck 1,800]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Is it a stupid analogy because you proved my point, thus making your original point moot?  You see, because you just gave a perfect example of a state being even closer to the Federal minimum wage than NJ.  Hence, more strict, but not lower.

I'll await a further remark making your point even LESS valid.

 

As I just said to Baker Boy, my point with bringing up 30 weeks is I think that’s a point where most states (not all) would agree it shouldn’t be allowed, and already have laws on the books stating as such. 

With minimum wage, most states are well above the federal minimum and likely would be regardless of the federal law.  So it’s an apples to oranges comparison with Graham’s proposal which would be more strict than over half of the states’ laws.

[Baker Boy 1,485]

48 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

As I just said to Baker Boy, my point with bringing up 30 weeks is I think that’s a point where most states (not all) would agree it shouldn’t be allowed, and already have laws on the books stating as such. 

With minimum wage, most states are well above the federal minimum and likely would be regardless of the federal law.  So it’s an apples to oranges comparison with Graham’s proposal which would be more strict than over half of the states’ laws.

Wrong, They can live outside of the womb before 30 weeks but that is not a defining factor. Life begins at conception and there’s no getting around that it’s science.

[TimHauck 1,800]

35 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

Wrong, They can live outside of the womb before 30 weeks but that is not a defining factor. Life begins at conception and there’s no getting around that it’s science.

What’s wrong?  I’m not having that argument.  Just comparing Graham’s proposal with current state laws.

[craftsman 1,045]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

What’s wrong?  I’m not having that argument.  Just comparing Graham’s proposal with current state laws.

So, what humans do you not mind killing vs. those you think are fine to kill? 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Stacey Abrams:

Quote

"There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks," Abrams, who is running against incumbent Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, told the audience. "It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman's body."

botcuck's hero!

[Reality 2,710]

1 hour ago, TimmySmith said:

Stacey Abrams:

botcuck's hero!

Our local liberals will be here soon claiming she is correct. That's how far gone their side is.

[TimHauck 1,800]

1 hour ago, TimmySmith said:

Stacey Abrams:

botcuck's hero!

Lol that’s dumb.  Doesn’t make it a human though.

[dogcows 1,029]

1 hour ago, TimmySmith said:

Stacey Abrams:

botcuck's hero!

A fetus doesn’t even have a heart at 6 weeks.

https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html

[MDC 5,891]

5 minutes ago, dogcows said:

A fetus doesn’t even have a heart at 6 weeks.

https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html

POW! Timmah goes down again.  

[jerryskids 5,206]

12 minutes ago, dogcows said:

A fetus doesn’t even have a heart at 6 weeks.

https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html

 

6 minutes ago, MDC said:

POW! Timmah goes down again.  

I'm missing the big gotcha here.  From the link, it has the beginning of a heart, which causes the flutter.

Quote

After the detection of the flutter at six weeks, the heart muscle continues to develop over the next four to six weeks, undergoing the folding and bending that needs to happen for the heart to take its final shape, Aftab said.

So, it isn't fully formed at 6 weeks.  Is that pwnage?   

[dogcows 1,029]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

 

I'm missing the big gotcha here.  From the link, it has the beginning of a heart, which causes the flutter.

So, it isn't fully formed at 6 weeks.  Is that pwnage?   

The point is that people are blasting her for saying there is no heartbeat at 6 weeks. But that's true since the heart isn’t formed yet. People don’t want to hear it I guess?

[Reality 2,710]

Knew it, like clockwork.

Since the heart isn't fully formed, it's not technically a 'heart'beat.

Imagine saying something that focking stupid and feeling good about it.

I mean hell, a toddler isn't fully formed, is it really a human?

Idiots.