Page 116 of 308
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:50 pm
by kramerica.inc
jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:49 pm
about 15.7% of pregnancies end in abortion in the US.
about 14.2% of pregnancies end in a child in poverty in the US.
So basically the pro-lifers what to double the number of children in poverty, because they lose all interest in the child after they are born. "Its the parent's responsibility, if they can't afford them, they should not have had them", is their claim. It's all about responsibility. It's always the same. They entire movement is filled with hypocrites.
They have no answers. Just push the problems around and blame someone else.
"We want to save kids from poverty, by not letting them live at all."
What were you saying about odd hypocricy?
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 6:27 pm
by ggait
Judge Park doesn't see a little difference between church services and visiting the liquor store for a fifth of amber fluid?
Churches (like bars, restaurants and gyms) do have particular characteristics that make them a lot more hazardous than other public indoor spaces. But Cuomo did get carried away on this one.
Ten people in a cathedral? Pretty ridiculous when dealing with constitutionally protected behavior. Although in 2020, many (religious or not) would be correct in feeling that the ability to buy booze is a pretty fundamental right as well.
Having said that, I think Alito's whiny speech was embarassing. Sounds like he'd be better suited as a Fox News grievance ranter than as a federal judge. Get off my damn lawn!!
Alito is a great example of why SCOTUS justices need to be term limited.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 6:37 pm
by jhu72
kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:50 pm
jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:49 pm
about 15.7% of pregnancies end in abortion in the US.
about 14.2% of pregnancies end in a child in poverty in the US.
So basically the pro-lifers what to double the number of children in poverty, because they lose all interest in the child after they are born. "Its the parent's responsibility, if they can't afford them, they should not have had them", is their claim. It's all about responsibility. It's always the same. They entire movement is filled with hypocrites.
They have no answers. Just push the problems around and blame someone else.
"We want to save kids from poverty, by not letting them live at all."
What were you saying about odd hypocricy?
I support live kids having a reasonable quality of life. Don't believe in putting them in cages. Don't believe in putting them in situations where they have hopeless lives. Until you are willing to address the quality of life issue, your moral position is bankrupt!
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:47 pm
by kramerica.inc
No. My moral position is not bankrupt. I believe in letting kids live, them having a quality life, AND spending to ensure those things happen. So again, tell me why not letting those kids live is a better “choice?”
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2020 4:54 pm
by seacoaster
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2020 5:00 pm
by kramerica.inc
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:46 pm
by kramerica.inc
Dersh thinks SCOTUS could keep Biden out of the White House:
https://www.inquisitr.com/6391682/alan- ... -election/
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:11 pm
by seacoaster
I responded to this on the 2020 election thread. Dershowitz is really a sad haz-been.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 pm
by youthathletics
seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:11 pm
I responded to this on the 2020 election thread. Dershowitz is really a sad haz-been.
So was Trump....look what that got us.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:33 pm
by RedFromMI
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 pm
seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:11 pm
I responded to this on the 2020 election thread. Dershowitz is really a sad haz-been.
So was Trump....look what that got us.
Dersh’s article requires enough EC votes to disappear from the win column for Joe to drop him below 270. Ain’t happening...
I suspect it (the article) is just to keep his reputation up with the crazies.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:38 pm
by youthathletics
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:33 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 pm
seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:11 pm
I responded to this on the 2020 election thread. Dershowitz is really a sad haz-been.
So was Trump....look what that got us.
Dersh’s article requires enough EC votes to disappear from the win column for Joe to drop him below 270. Ain’t happening...
I suspect it (the article) is just to keep his reputation up with the crazies.
It'd be nice if this all somehow gets us closer to a 'universal' voting policy, so we can avoid this roadside ditch we are stuck sloshing in each election.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:43 pm
by Typical Lax Dad
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:38 pm
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:33 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 pm
seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:11 pm
I responded to this on the 2020 election thread. Dershowitz is really a sad haz-been.
So was Trump....look what that got us.
Dersh’s article requires enough EC votes to disappear from the win column for Joe to drop him below 270. Ain’t happening...
I suspect it (the article) is just to keep his reputation up with the crazies.
It'd be nice if this all somehow gets us closer to a 'universal' voting policy, so we can avoid this roadside ditch we are stuck sloshing in each election.
When did this “roadside ditch development”? Sounds pejorative....Record voter turnout. We should be asking for more.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:45 pm
by cradleandshoot
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:38 pm
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:33 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 pm
seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:11 pm
I responded to this on the 2020 election thread. Dershowitz is really a sad haz-been.
So was Trump....look what that got us.
Dersh’s article requires enough EC votes to disappear from the win column for Joe to drop him below 270. Ain’t happening...
I suspect it (the article) is just to keep his reputation up with the crazies.
It'd be nice if this all somehow gets us closer to a 'universal' voting policy, so we can avoid this roadside ditch we are stuck sloshing in each election.
+1 It will never happen, but it should.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:51 pm
by Typical Lax Dad
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:45 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:38 pm
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:33 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 pm
seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:11 pm
I responded to this on the 2020 election thread. Dershowitz is really a sad haz-been.
So was Trump....look what that got us.
Dersh’s article requires enough EC votes to disappear from the win column for Joe to drop him below 270. Ain’t happening...
I suspect it (the article) is just to keep his reputation up with the crazies.
It'd be nice if this all somehow gets us closer to a 'universal' voting policy, so we can avoid this roadside ditch we are stuck sloshing in each election.
+1 It will never happen, but it should.
What happened to “states rights”.....
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:51 pm
by youthathletics
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:43 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:38 pm
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:33 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 pm
seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:11 pm
I responded to this on the 2020 election thread. Dershowitz is really a sad haz-been.
So was Trump....look what that got us.
Dersh’s article requires enough EC votes to disappear from the win column for Joe to drop him below 270. Ain’t happening...
I suspect it (the article) is just to keep his reputation up with the crazies.
It'd be nice if this all somehow gets us closer to a 'universal' voting policy, so we can avoid this roadside ditch we are stuck sloshing in each election.
When did this “roadside ditch development”? Sounds pejorative....Record voter turnout. We should be asking for more.
There you go again, you need another hobby. I posted on it earlier, where you engaged and also threw in your typical 1-3 questions, followed by a smart ass condescending comment. #TrollCzar #TLDTrumpOfFanLax
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:52 pm
by Typical Lax Dad
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:51 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:43 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:38 pm
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:33 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 pm
seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:11 pm
I responded to this on the 2020 election thread. Dershowitz is really a sad haz-been.
So was Trump....look what that got us.
Dersh’s article requires enough EC votes to disappear from the win column for Joe to drop him below 270. Ain’t happening...
I suspect it (the article) is just to keep his reputation up with the crazies.
It'd be nice if this all somehow gets us closer to a 'universal' voting policy, so we can avoid this roadside ditch we are stuck sloshing in each election.
When did this “roadside ditch development”? Sounds pejorative....Record voter turnout. We should be asking for more.
There you go again, you need another hobby. I posted on it earlier, where you engaged and also threw in your typical 1-3 questions, followed by a smart ass condescending comment. #TrollCzar #TLDTrumpOfFanLax
I missed it. You can answer my question now. I stepped up my troll game after you, actually...
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:44 pm
by seacoaster
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 pm
seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:11 pm
I responded to this on the 2020 election thread. Dershowitz is really a sad haz-been.
So was Trump....look what that got us.
Well...that’s kind of on you.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:46 pm
by Typical Lax Dad
seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:44 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 pm
seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:11 pm
I responded to this on the 2020 election thread. Dershowitz is really a sad haz-been.
So was Trump....look what that got us.
Well...that’s kind of on you.
+1
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:15 pm
by seacoaster
Apparently Sid’s not part of the Elite Strike Team.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:56 pm
by youthathletics
seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:44 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 pm
seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:11 pm
I responded to this on the 2020 election thread. Dershowitz is really a sad haz-been.
So was Trump....look what that got us.
Well...that’s kind of on you.
Not living in MD, it’s not.