OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
A law is as close to a "right" as you're ever going to get. Rights are a fantasy. They don't exist. We have privileges, at best. Rights can be taken away at most any time... that's why they're not real. Laws are much harder to get removed. We don't have a "right" to anything. I see the legal system circumvent people's alleged rights all the time.
The question and the response reveals much about the lib mentality and the media reporting behind our world. The short answer to your question is it means absolutely nothing other than the D's, in their typical united drive the message and winning is the only thing that matters mentality, have all voted for Hakeem. It's not first place or any type of victory. It simply means that the minority party has remained united in their little corner behind their guy who will win nothing. He will remain the minority leader and someone else will ultimately become majority leader. In the meantime, the media acts like he is somehow accomplishing something by getting the "most" votes and the lapdogs eat it up like a hambone. All it represents is another election for minority leader. It will, however, be interesting on who emerges and how it gets resolved. In the meantime, nothing is "getting done" and things are relatively gridlocked. Yay.
“In the meantime, nothing is getting done and things are relatively gridlocked.”
And that is the intention of the Dems. They employ obstructionist tactics and vote in lockstep like the lemmings they are.
Technically he could end up being the speaker if enough republicans vote for him or vote "present." I know there is a non zero chance of that happening, but it's something to keep in mind.
What do the dems have to do with the republican vote? Republicans are the ones holding this up and looking bad in the process.
For the record, I'd take Jim Jordan over McCarthy too. But I'd concede and vote McCarthy just to get it done and stop giving the idiot liberals ammunition.
In fairness, gridlock is usually good for Americans. Granted, the pendulum has swung too far left and corrections need to be made. But gridlock and simply temporarily stopping the insanity is a win in my book.
100% agree. If only we could get some disappearing ink for the president's pens. Also, while it's rarely talked about, true gridlock only occurs if the parties are split between the president and the senate. Yes, the house will hold up new legislation and cause significant compromise to be done. However, people forget that the senate is exclusively responsible for judicial nominations, etc. If the president and the senate are the same, they can push through nominations that have far and long reaching aspects. Look at what He Who Must Not Be Re-Elected did with Dobbs.
If this gets done relatively quickly, this will all be forgotten and they will move on to the next "offensive" thing they can attack.
You are correct, of course, from a technical standpoint, but this has no more chance of happening than the numbnuts who keep rolling out the possibility of having orangeman serve as speaker. Just not gonna happen.
That's not at all what he believes and you know that. What he believes is what I believe - that LGBT people have the right to be whatever they want. But he believes, like I do, that when one lives an abnormal lifestyle, the onus is on that individual to recognize that their lifestyle is abnormal and will not be accepted by the masses. It doesn't mean you're less. It just means the majority don't support your lifestyle. And instead of attempting to force others to accept your lifestyle, those living the alternative lifestyle should be content with themselves and understand you won't be accepted. That's life.
And of course, he does not support any kind of that pretend shit being a part of school curriculum. If you're trans, talk about it with your parent when you get home. Or a friend. Or, I don't know...maybe a therapist. Not with some goofy, lazy, do-nothing guidance counselor that has an inflated opinion of their importance and thinks they're a psychotherapist. Or with an Algebra teacher that spends most of his/her time managing behavior issues.
All this! Plus - most importantly- people can do and be what they want when they reach adulthood- 18 or 21 or whatever- but otherwise leave the kids alone!!! Don’t target them with any sexual discussion in school. Sex ed and gender discussions have no place in school. Period. That’s his stance.
Second - RDS fights for parents’ rights re their kids. There are plenty of cases where wack job “teachers” and “doctors” try to groom or encourage kids to be trans or to get life altering mutilation surgeries and chemicals - at crazy young ages, while hiding it from the parents. This is insane, sick, evil. Who can be for these people damaging kids, and parents being fully unaware or being manipulated or lied to about the choices and long term effects for their own kids?
Last edited:
First of all, school faculty are in no way qualified to have a discussion on mental illnesses. Do faculty members encourage children to feel as if they have multiple personalities? No. If a child has multiple personalities, does the school feel as if they should be leading those discussions with kids? Of course not. They will refer them to a therapist or psychiatrist that will help them work through their issues.
But for argument's sake, let's relent and agree that guidance counselors, teachers and school admin are qualified enough to broach severe mental health issues. Is it wise for them to initiate these discussions? Or would it be better for the parent of the child to initiate these discussions? Of course the parent should do that. Frankly, in my opinion, it's abuse for a faculty member to prompt those discussions. I think they should have charges of child abuse and mistreatment filed upon them for doing so. If a child comes to a faculty member and says, "hey teach, I like to pretend that I'm a girl even though I'm a guy and I would like to have this off-putting discussion with you." That teacher should reply with, "have your parent contact me and then we can continue this discussion but I will not have that conversation without their approval." And then, if the parent agrees, that discussion should take place off school grounds to signal the faculty member is helping the child work through those issues and is NOT representing the school when doing so.
As usual, you are intentionally simplifying the argument either in a weak attempt at subterfuge or, more than likely, because you have no idea what you're talking about.
While rights and laws are different from one another, the key point here is that rights are protected by laws. It's very simple: in North Carolina, abortion is legal. Therefore a woman's right to have an abortion in North Carolina is protected by law.
A few specific points from your message:
If NC law is changed tomorrow, abortion could be made just as illegal as it is currently legal.
I never said anything to the contrary. However, before you and @gunslingerdick get your hopes up, you may want to consider the likelihood -- nay, the almost certainty -- of the wrath of women voters in this state. Consider Kansas as a good example.
There is no right to abortion, even though you may be acting within current 'legal rights' to attain one. If there was a right to abortion, no law could be made to take that right away.
Actually, your statement is not entirely true. In 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled on the legality of abortions in Roe v. Wade , they cited the Due Process Clause found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which "prohibits arbitrary deprivation of 'life, liberty, or property' by the government."
So to that end, abortions in this country are indeed inalienable rights, or at least they were before this version of the Supreme Court went beyond its legitimate authority and overturned Roe.
You're just trying to keep from looking like the fool you are, and as usual failing miserably.
And right now you look absolutely foolish pretending to know anything about constitutional law.
I guess the joke is on you if you actually think the House Democrats are strategically chasing some almost unattainable goal with their votes, although @tarheel0910 is correct when he writes that technically Jeffries could be selected as Speaker of the House.
In the meantime, while sitting back in their comfortable chairs in their "little corner" watching the dysfunctional Republicans fall all over themselves just trying to find a leader, it is a bit of a victory for the party.
gunslingerdick:
Imagine a world where people go to such great lengths to make excuses for irresponsibility and actually endorse killing unborn babies because of it.
My guess on how it most logically ends up is that the anti- McCarthy holdouts, no votes - become clear on demands / concessions that McCarthy will sign off on, agree to, in return for votes for him. Things like truth being pursued vigilantly on Jan 6 inside job; the Biden laptop and family corruption with China Ukraine Russia, investigating fbi doj cia and their politicization in working with Dems and social media / tech giants to censor information, disallow freedom of speech etc
And fighting to get border under control, repeal the 87k new irs agents, have more scrutiny and audit on Ukraine funding.
It could be a long list - but there are some key items the voters and their representatives want resolved or investigated instead of same old business as usual roll over and cave and ignore these topics - which makes voting seem pointless if the parties and representatives and what they promote is virtually identical
And fighting to get border under control, repeal the 87k new irs agents, have more scrutiny and audit on Ukraine funding.
It could be a long list - but there are some key items the voters and their representatives want resolved or investigated instead of same old business as usual roll over and cave and ignore these topics - which makes voting seem pointless if the parties and representatives and what they promote is virtually identical
lol, you actually think you can outsmart reality with semantics? I didn't think you were that ridiculous, but I guess your desperation to be thought right has no bounds.
There is no right to abortion. The quote you provide regarding the RvW decision was shitcanned along with the rest of RvW. It is bogus, and it always was. That decision only determined legality by a stretch of liberal interpretation, and thank God that situation has been rectified.
I am not a lawyer and don't pretend to be. I don't know the finer points of law in any area and have never claimed as much; but I have something you seem to lack completely, and that's common sense and general knowledge combined with a healthy respect for the truth.
The simple truth is that there is no right to abortion, not either Constitutionally or morally or inalienably. In no way can it be considered a right, even if you stretch the meaning of existing amendments to the Constitution ( "prohibits arbitrary deprivation of 'life, liberty, or property' by the government." ' which ironically attempts to allow the deprivation life while expressing the desire to not interfere with life ). The actuality is that while you focus on 'life, liberty, or property', you forget that what it hinges on is the word 'arbitrary'. It isn't saying that laws can not be established regarding 'life, liberty, or property', but rather that any such laws or government actions can not be conducted or put in place arbitrarily. The real irony is that those lib supremes acted arbitrarily in establishing RvW. They violated the very amendment that they were leaning on.
Abortion is subject to legal manipulation (including its outright banning), just as speed limits and the possession of pot are. Are open speed limits and the possession of pot considered Constitutional rights? Are they rights by any definition?
The simple truth is that many women want easy access to abortion because our moral compass has been so heavily degraded by liberals. I consider myself a libertarian and I am not for government interference in our (so-called) rights or just in our lives. But there is more to consider with abortion than a woman's rights, and that is the termination of life that has no voice to defend itself with. There is no right to destroy that life (which actually is protected by the amendment that was used to deny it), but there is reason for women to act responsibly enough to prevent the question from even being asked.
I've purposely opened a door for you to continue floundering around semantically while you make no point at all. Please use it.
And BTW, I don't give a shit what this does to the vote, in spite of your typically juvenile nanny nanny boo boo. Right is right, and right-headedness is first and foremost to me. Those things obviously mean nothing to you.
So many fbi agents, antifa, etc in an otherwise normally peaceful, no weapons, no coordination, no group communication - crowd of Trump supporters. I am saying Fbi and antifa stoked and led the others into the J6 trespass. Which is what it was, not an insurrection or threat to overthrow the govt.
As more and more truth gets leaked, you hear DJT state several times “March to the Capitol PEACEFULLY- NO VIOLENCE!” but of course media and govt have tried to bury that. Just like they have tried to bury / hide that “insurrection instigator” Ray Epps was a former fbi employee, only person leading the invasion and provoking it, but for some reason not arrested - why is that?
Also leaked - several requests to Pelosi and dc police to strengthen security and police and nat guard force at Capitol on Jan 6 including multiple requests directly from DJT. Pelosi denied each and took actions to weaken security that day. Why is that?
Read Julie Kelly’s book on Jan 6. She has relentlessly reported the truth via airtight reporting, mostly direct quotes and indisputable evidence from all persons on site that day. The book explains what J6 really was and what it wasn’t and who was behind the actions and who wasn’t - better than I can here
You really didn't have to be so longwinded to express little more than your biased opinion. You also didn't need to make the claim that you are not a lawyer as that is an obvious given.
For 50 years and through multiple combinations of Supreme Court members -- even all those times when there was a conservative majority, which I believe has been a majority of the time -- Roe v. Wade was upheld. It was not "shitcanned" or based on "liberal interpretations." The only reason it was recently overturned is because Trump nominated judges who pledged to vote to overturn the 1973 decision.
But under the "careful what you wish for" rule, keep in mind that Clarance Thomas is excessively obese and perhaps only one cheeseburger away from full cardiac arrest. And John Roberts and Samuel Alito are not spring chickens either. As soon as these men bite the dust, they can and probably will be replaced by Justices with more liberal agendas.
LOL... Julie Kelly's book! Good one! That's like reading Jefferson Davis' "Rise & Fall of the Confederacy." She's "reporting the truth?" Really? She has every motivation to be embarrassed by what happened. But, rather than place the blame where it belongs, she manufactures scapegoats.
1/6 is just another example of how people can view the exact same thing and come away with completely different explanations or even summations of what they actually saw. People can always be relied upon to keep things interesting.
^^^^^ I never said otherwise; but we are governed by laws, and those laws are made with respect to what we call 'rights'. While I too consider the idea of rights to be fantasy, our establishment of 'inalienable rights' is the undeniable truth and reality of the matter. In my mind, there is no 'right' to do anything specifically, but that isn't how we are structured. In my mind, we have the 'right' to do as we please, but obviously there has to be some limitation on that freedom if we are to maintain something other than anarchy in our society.
When we argue rights, we aren't really arguing about what is a right and what isn't, we're simply disagreeing on what we do or do not want to limit and we (rightfully) use those Constitutionally guaranteed rights to set the edges, to borrow a football term.
Regarding our current subject, if there is no such thing as a right, there is no right to abortion. Abortion is however subject to laws within the system that has been established, and nothing in the Constitution says otherwise. There is no ethereal right to abortion. There is no Constitutional right to abortion. There is no inalienable right to abortion. RvW was an aberrational attempt to manufacture law on the spot by a body specifically prohibited from doing exactly that, and an amendment to the Constitution was wrongheadedly misinterpreted to do so.
There is a rich discussion to be had on the original Constitutionalists' decision to establish defined rights in the Bill of Rights, rather than just assuming rights that are only intruded on by laws that serve to prevent one individual or the government from stepping on the rights (freedom, essentially) of another individual.
In other words, specific rights wouldn't be enumerated, or even considered as being untouchable. There would simply be the right to act freely in any manner without the interference of the government or another individual citizen. Any law enacted would have to be shown to not unduly interfere with an individual's freedom. There could still be a bill of specific rights, but they would have to be clearly stated as to their intent and purpose of preserving freedom, with that preservation of freedom from the claws of government and other individuals being their only purpose.....and they would be more on the order of guidelines as to how 'limited freedoms' should be defined. They would in effect limit the limits in order to prevent the 'tyranny of the majority'.
That's what I would have done, but that isn't what was done. So some of us deal with that reality rather than act as if the world is structured according to our random thoughts.
as usual, you turn from the point at hand to attempt to jab with a juvenile nanny nanny boo boo. I'll say again, it's the cause I'm concerned with more so than the effect. You on the other hand, don't give a shit about right or wrong in any sense, but only the end result.
If you claim to be more legally astute than me, you have to agree that the decision of the SCOTUS to make law regarding abortion was unconstitutional. The Supremes are tasked to strike down laws that they deem to be unconstitutional, they don't substitute their own laws in place of them.
Trump managed to place justices who would actually act on correcting that mistake. Only naked self-interest, and no legal acuity, can be behind assailing that correction.
And?
ETA: We agree that women don't really have "the right" to an abortion. It's an option/choice.
Last edited:
and nothing. I said what I wanted to. Sorry you're having a hard time understanding, or pretending to not understand.
ETA. yes of course it's an option/choice, and subject to law. You can choose to get drunk and try to drive home, but the law says you might get your license suspended if you get caught doing so. You could get much worse if you kill someone.
Did you have some point I'm not catching?
But wait…you said MAGA was dead. Lol
ACB - 50 years old
Gorsuch - 55 years old
Kavanaugh - 57 years old
Roberts - 62 years old
Alito - 72 years old
Thomas - 74 years old
A lot of life left there, considering the average age for a justice to leave the court is 81. But Thomas may step down in a couple years and allow Big Dick Ron to get another MAGA on there.
Is that the preface? I was waiting for the first volume to end. You should be getting paid for all the words you type.
Sorry, but I have no intention of going out and buying the book and then reading it, especially since I assume it is full of conspiracy-theory hooey. However, I did find her book on Amazon and read as much as I was allowed of the book's introduction (while keeping one eye on my TV as the dazed-and-confused Republicans try for a FIFTH TIME to pick a leader).
All I’ve seen so far is Julie Keely’s false claim that the Democrats turned the 2020 election into an unfair fight. “They recruited election workers and exploited the pandemic to justify loose rules on absentee voting. In short, the shadowy interest leveraged every bit of power at their disposal to tip the scales in Biden’s favor while fueling speculation Trump would use every bit of his power to stay in office.”
So she is obviously angry that Democrats simply outsmarted Republicans during the campaign and were 100% correct about Trump's denial of the results of what has repeatedly been called the fairest election in this nation's history.
If she is that confused over the simplicity of an election, I would hate to waste my time seeing how confused she might be trying to explain the January 6 insurrection.
I was right to begin with: just a bunch of conspiracy-theory hooey.
with you I'd only have to pay for a handful of words before they overwhelmed you.
I would suggest doing a little more research, because most of what you said is misinterpreted at best. I also think people are a little confused about what to look at. It's not just what happened that day, it's also the events leading up to it. That started sometime in November.
I read maybe the first sentence... then I'm done. Shop around for a different publisher.
You still would owe him a couple of dollars. You Venmo? I'll broker the deal for a small service fee.
Similar threads
