Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Taking the temperature of the room
Comments
-
I want it in writing. Your unenumerated rights are quite selective and your were happy when you have the leftard vote on the Supreme Court which just made sh*t up and the Constitution "grew" and "breathed". I'd say that taking more than half of what someone earns is a violation of due process, equal protection and their right to property. You would put your eye out with a spoon if the Court ruled that taking more than half of what someone makes is unconstitutional.HHusky said:
Very fascist to recognize unenumerated rights, of course.WestlinnDuck said:
It's called limited federal government. Your "feelings" that abortion was a Constitutional right retained by the people, but that the first and second amendment can be severally restrained and that you get to pick and choose was rights were retained is just pure authoritarian fascism. The written word becomes meaningless and our rights are dependent on fascists like the dazzler.HHusky said:
Prohibiting reproductive choice is exactly like prohibiting people from doing cocaine (cocaine use being a YUGE issue for the US in 1789), of course.WestlinnDuck said:
Like I said, the dazzler sucks at this. Booze and cocaine were legal in 1789. And then later it wasn't. The dazzler's Roe decision would read, "Abortion wasn't illegal in 1789 and so it is a right retained by the people and can't be limited." No one asserted that that the 36 states that had substantial restrictions on alcohol prior to the 18th Amendment were unconstitutionally restricting drinking alcohol. That's because the states retained the right to police their citizens. In 1789 even after the ratification of the Constitution and the First Amendment, the states had the right to establish a state church if they wanted. That's how far state rights went.RaceBannon said:
I'm rightHHusky said:
sadly, I think you're being honest hereRaceBannon said:
NoHHusky said:
and not mandatoryRaceBannon said:
You live in a state where abortion is legalHHusky said:
Reproductive choice and personal decision making in connection therewith. Practiced by Americans in 1789 and for two-and-a-half centuries before any statutory restriction on abortion.WestlinnDuck said:
By people, they meant the states. You suck at this. The Constitution was a restriction on the federal government. You should read the 10th amendment. There was no right to an abortion in 1789. It wasn't a right "retained" by the people. It was a super constitutional right created by whole cloth by leftards. I don't see "emantations" and "penumbras" anywhere in the document.HHusky said:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.WestlinnDuck said:
As a conservative, I get upset when ostensibly educated people can't read and understand a 4,440 word document which explicitly has a right to free speech and the right to bear arms but doesn't have a right to an abortion.Prestonluv said:Overturning Roe vs Wade was just stupid for a plethora of reasons.
Namely the poor being the people who have too many babies in the first place. Now they will have more.
Just stupid. As a conservative I get upset when politicians let religion dictate policy.
This only hurts the right in the long run and rightfully so.
see the difference?
If it's illegal it's not mandatory either
refreshing, yet disappointing
There's no right to abortion
It was in all the papers
Your usual trip into the weeds doesn't change that
All sorts of things are illegal.
Fuck off
If states agree with Prestonluv that abortion is good public policy nothing prohibits it
Defending democracy every day. That's me
#PoliceTheUterus
supposed libertarians are funny -
So, you somehow read an unexpressed limitation into the 16th Amendment while ignoring an expressed limitation contained in the 2d.WestlinnDuck said:
I want it in writing. Your unenumerated rights are quite selective and your were happy when you have the leftard vote on the Supreme Court which just made sh*t up and the Constitution "grew" and "breathed". I'd say that taking more than half of what someone earns is a violation of due process, equal protection and their right to property. You would put your eye out with a spoon if the Court ruled that taking more than half of what someone makes is unconstitutional.HHusky said:
Very fascist to recognize unenumerated rights, of course.WestlinnDuck said:
It's called limited federal government. Your "feelings" that abortion was a Constitutional right retained by the people, but that the first and second amendment can be severally restrained and that you get to pick and choose was rights were retained is just pure authoritarian fascism. The written word becomes meaningless and our rights are dependent on fascists like the dazzler.HHusky said:
Prohibiting reproductive choice is exactly like prohibiting people from doing cocaine (cocaine use being a YUGE issue for the US in 1789), of course.WestlinnDuck said:
Like I said, the dazzler sucks at this. Booze and cocaine were legal in 1789. And then later it wasn't. The dazzler's Roe decision would read, "Abortion wasn't illegal in 1789 and so it is a right retained by the people and can't be limited." No one asserted that that the 36 states that had substantial restrictions on alcohol prior to the 18th Amendment were unconstitutionally restricting drinking alcohol. That's because the states retained the right to police their citizens. In 1789 even after the ratification of the Constitution and the First Amendment, the states had the right to establish a state church if they wanted. That's how far state rights went.RaceBannon said:
I'm rightHHusky said:
sadly, I think you're being honest hereRaceBannon said:
NoHHusky said:
and not mandatoryRaceBannon said:
You live in a state where abortion is legalHHusky said:
Reproductive choice and personal decision making in connection therewith. Practiced by Americans in 1789 and for two-and-a-half centuries before any statutory restriction on abortion.WestlinnDuck said:
By people, they meant the states. You suck at this. The Constitution was a restriction on the federal government. You should read the 10th amendment. There was no right to an abortion in 1789. It wasn't a right "retained" by the people. It was a super constitutional right created by whole cloth by leftards. I don't see "emantations" and "penumbras" anywhere in the document.HHusky said:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.WestlinnDuck said:
As a conservative, I get upset when ostensibly educated people can't read and understand a 4,440 word document which explicitly has a right to free speech and the right to bear arms but doesn't have a right to an abortion.Prestonluv said:Overturning Roe vs Wade was just stupid for a plethora of reasons.
Namely the poor being the people who have too many babies in the first place. Now they will have more.
Just stupid. As a conservative I get upset when politicians let religion dictate policy.
This only hurts the right in the long run and rightfully so.
see the difference?
If it's illegal it's not mandatory either
refreshing, yet disappointing
There's no right to abortion
It was in all the papers
Your usual trip into the weeds doesn't change that
All sorts of things are illegal.
Fuck off
If states agree with Prestonluv that abortion is good public policy nothing prohibits it
Defending democracy every day. That's me
#PoliceTheUterus
supposed libertarians are funny
Yeah, you're not a hypocrite. -
NOCHHusky said:
Watched his 2:45 clip speaking at Stanford. Good speaker. Good timing and funny.hardhat said:
Having said that, he tries to conflate two different things. Satire and humor always have an element of truth to them, and ideologues are definitely humorless. All good points. He could have left it there and made his protest.
By arguing that "the truth is not hate speech", he removes himself from the satirist's role and takes the position that he is a "truth teller", a newsman. The satirist can take aim at things, but when he takes himself too seriously, he becomes one of the humorless as well. -
Was that personal freedom you were advocating?HHusky said:
Reproductive choice and personal decision making in connection therewith. Practiced by Americans in 1789 and for two-and-a-half centuries before any statutory restriction on abortion.WestlinnDuck said:
By people, they meant the states. You suck at this. The Constitution was a restriction on the federal government. You should read the 10th amendment. There was no right to an abortion in 1789. It wasn't a right "retained" by the people. It was a super constitutional right created by whole cloth by leftards. I don't see "emantations" and "penumbras" anywhere in the document.HHusky said:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.WestlinnDuck said:
As a conservative, I get upset when ostensibly educated people can't read and understand a 4,440 word document which explicitly has a right to free speech and the right to bear arms but doesn't have a right to an abortion.Prestonluv said:Overturning Roe vs Wade was just stupid for a plethora of reasons.
Namely the poor being the people who have too many babies in the first place. Now they will have more.
Just stupid. As a conservative I get upset when politicians let religion dictate policy.
This only hurts the right in the long run and rightfully so. -
We've been over this and you were stomped into the mud. Shall we revisit?HHusky said:
So, you somehow read an unexpressed limitation into the 16th Amendment while ignoring an expressed limitation contained in the 2d.WestlinnDuck said:
I want it in writing. Your unenumerated rights are quite selective and your were happy when you have the leftard vote on the Supreme Court which just made sh*t up and the Constitution "grew" and "breathed". I'd say that taking more than half of what someone earns is a violation of due process, equal protection and their right to property. You would put your eye out with a spoon if the Court ruled that taking more than half of what someone makes is unconstitutional.HHusky said:
Very fascist to recognize unenumerated rights, of course.WestlinnDuck said:
It's called limited federal government. Your "feelings" that abortion was a Constitutional right retained by the people, but that the first and second amendment can be severally restrained and that you get to pick and choose was rights were retained is just pure authoritarian fascism. The written word becomes meaningless and our rights are dependent on fascists like the dazzler.HHusky said:
Prohibiting reproductive choice is exactly like prohibiting people from doing cocaine (cocaine use being a YUGE issue for the US in 1789), of course.WestlinnDuck said:
Like I said, the dazzler sucks at this. Booze and cocaine were legal in 1789. And then later it wasn't. The dazzler's Roe decision would read, "Abortion wasn't illegal in 1789 and so it is a right retained by the people and can't be limited." No one asserted that that the 36 states that had substantial restrictions on alcohol prior to the 18th Amendment were unconstitutionally restricting drinking alcohol. That's because the states retained the right to police their citizens. In 1789 even after the ratification of the Constitution and the First Amendment, the states had the right to establish a state church if they wanted. That's how far state rights went.RaceBannon said:
I'm rightHHusky said:
sadly, I think you're being honest hereRaceBannon said:
NoHHusky said:
and not mandatoryRaceBannon said:
You live in a state where abortion is legalHHusky said:
Reproductive choice and personal decision making in connection therewith. Practiced by Americans in 1789 and for two-and-a-half centuries before any statutory restriction on abortion.WestlinnDuck said:
By people, they meant the states. You suck at this. The Constitution was a restriction on the federal government. You should read the 10th amendment. There was no right to an abortion in 1789. It wasn't a right "retained" by the people. It was a super constitutional right created by whole cloth by leftards. I don't see "emantations" and "penumbras" anywhere in the document.HHusky said:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.WestlinnDuck said:
As a conservative, I get upset when ostensibly educated people can't read and understand a 4,440 word document which explicitly has a right to free speech and the right to bear arms but doesn't have a right to an abortion.Prestonluv said:Overturning Roe vs Wade was just stupid for a plethora of reasons.
Namely the poor being the people who have too many babies in the first place. Now they will have more.
Just stupid. As a conservative I get upset when politicians let religion dictate policy.
This only hurts the right in the long run and rightfully so.
see the difference?
If it's illegal it's not mandatory either
refreshing, yet disappointing
There's no right to abortion
It was in all the papers
Your usual trip into the weeds doesn't change that
All sorts of things are illegal.
Fuck off
If states agree with Prestonluv that abortion is good public policy nothing prohibits it
Defending democracy every day. That's me
#PoliceTheUterus
supposed libertarians are funny
Yeah, you're not a hypocrite. -
Yeah but if our team wins the House than everything will be different.46XiJCAB said:
Mitch is going to leave Oz out to dry because he won't promise to wash his balls. Instead PA gets this loser and we get him for 6 years in the US Senate and Mitch is fine with that.RaceBannon said:Back to the horrible GOP candidates
Nevermind
Uniparty today
Uniparty tomorrow
Uniparty FOREVER
It's a game folks. And we're the pawns.
V.122.01. -
I didn't assume that you were upset, you said it was good. I don't need to check myself. In a normal world, a 'christian satire site' would probably have a small audience. But the intolerant left have made themselves such easy targets that it's surprisingly popular. I don't know if he takes himself too seriously, I haven't met him.HHusky said:
If you assumed I was upset by his presentation, then you might need to check yourself. And I didn’t accuse him of anything but taking himself too seriously, and thereby losing a little of the high ground.hardhat said:
Only the left says things like this. Who are the ones that are upset when the light is shined on them? You're also conflating things. He's not daddy and he's not trying to censor you or prevent you from watching reruns of rachel maddow.HHusky said:
Watched his 2:45 clip speaking at Stanford. Good speaker. Good timing and funny.hardhat said:
Having said that, he tries to conflate two different things. Satire and humor always have an element of truth to them, and ideologues are definitely humorless. All good points. He could have left it there and made his protest.
By arguing that "the truth is not hate speech", he removes himself from the satirist's role and takes the position that he is a "truth teller", a newsman. The satirist can take aim at things, but when he takes himself too seriously, he becomes one of the humorless as well. -
Dazzler likes chirping about reproductive ‘choice’ but fails to mention assumption of risk.
Allowing an unwrapped dick into a non contraception protected vag has the potential to produce a human.
Thats the ultimate pro choice option. Choose wisely.
Or understand there may not be a get out of jail free card in your locale.
If you can’t grasp the consequences of ones actions, perhaps try carrying some hashish through customs in Russia.
-
People are having sex and there need to be consequences!PurpleThrobber said:Dazzler likes chirping about reproductive ‘choice’ but fails to mention assumption of risk.
Allowing an unwrapped dick into a non contraception protected vag has the potential to produce a human.
Thats the ultimate pro choice option. Choose wisely.
Or understand there may not be a get out of jail free card in your locale.
If you can’t grasp the consequences of ones actions, perhaps try carrying some hashish through customs in Russia.
A Puritanical take by PT. Interesting. Well . . . more interesting than usual, at least.
-
He does.hardhat said:
I didn't assume that you were upset, you said it was good. I don't need to check myself. In a normal world, a 'christian satire site' would probably have a small audience. But the intolerant left have made themselves such easy targets that it's surprisingly popular. I don't know if he takes himself too seriously, I haven't met him.HHusky said:
If you assumed I was upset by his presentation, then you might need to check yourself. And I didn’t accuse him of anything but taking himself too seriously, and thereby losing a little of the high ground.hardhat said:
Only the left says things like this. Who are the ones that are upset when the light is shined on them? You're also conflating things. He's not daddy and he's not trying to censor you or prevent you from watching reruns of rachel maddow.HHusky said:
Watched his 2:45 clip speaking at Stanford. Good speaker. Good timing and funny.hardhat said:
Having said that, he tries to conflate two different things. Satire and humor always have an element of truth to them, and ideologues are definitely humorless. All good points. He could have left it there and made his protest.
By arguing that "the truth is not hate speech", he removes himself from the satirist's role and takes the position that he is a "truth teller", a newsman. The satirist can take aim at things, but when he takes himself too seriously, he becomes one of the humorless as well.
It's why the Babylon Bee is occasionally funny but isn't usually. -
Somewhat back on subject has Chuckie Schumer complained about democrats candidates like the wife abuser in Georgia or does he attack the GOP candidates?
What the fuck is Mitch's problem?
Rhetorical -
We realize it often hurts your snatch, madam.HHusky said:
He does.hardhat said:
I didn't assume that you were upset, you said it was good. I don't need to check myself. In a normal world, a 'christian satire site' would probably have a small audience. But the intolerant left have made themselves such easy targets that it's surprisingly popular. I don't know if he takes himself too seriously, I haven't met him.HHusky said:
If you assumed I was upset by his presentation, then you might need to check yourself. And I didn’t accuse him of anything but taking himself too seriously, and thereby losing a little of the high ground.hardhat said:
Only the left says things like this. Who are the ones that are upset when the light is shined on them? You're also conflating things. He's not daddy and he's not trying to censor you or prevent you from watching reruns of rachel maddow.HHusky said:
Watched his 2:45 clip speaking at Stanford. Good speaker. Good timing and funny.hardhat said:
Having said that, he tries to conflate two different things. Satire and humor always have an element of truth to them, and ideologues are definitely humorless. All good points. He could have left it there and made his protest.
By arguing that "the truth is not hate speech", he removes himself from the satirist's role and takes the position that he is a "truth teller", a newsman. The satirist can take aim at things, but when he takes himself too seriously, he becomes one of the humorless as well.
It's why the Babylon Bee is occasionally funny but isn't usually. -
There are consequences with every pregnancy Mr Puritan. Dumb fuckHHusky said:
People are having sex and there need to be consequences!PurpleThrobber said:Dazzler likes chirping about reproductive ‘choice’ but fails to mention assumption of risk.
Allowing an unwrapped dick into a non contraception protected vag has the potential to produce a human.
Thats the ultimate pro choice option. Choose wisely.
Or understand there may not be a get out of jail free card in your locale.
If you can’t grasp the consequences of ones actions, perhaps try carrying some hashish through customs in Russia.
A Puritanical take by PT. Interesting. Well . . . more interesting than usual, at least. -
Your reading comprehension is as bad as your legal analysis.HHusky said:
People are having sex and there need to be consequences!PurpleThrobber said:Dazzler likes chirping about reproductive ‘choice’ but fails to mention assumption of risk.
Allowing an unwrapped dick into a non contraception protected vag has the potential to produce a human.
Thats the ultimate pro choice option. Choose wisely.
Or understand there may not be a get out of jail free card in your locale.
If you can’t grasp the consequences of ones actions, perhaps try carrying some hashish through customs in Russia.
A Puritanical take by PT. Interesting. Well . . . more interesting than usual, at least.
-
You just keep proving my point. Babylon Bee triggers the woke idiots and they big mad.HHusky said:
He does.hardhat said:
I didn't assume that you were upset, you said it was good. I don't need to check myself. In a normal world, a 'christian satire site' would probably have a small audience. But the intolerant left have made themselves such easy targets that it's surprisingly popular. I don't know if he takes himself too seriously, I haven't met him.HHusky said:
If you assumed I was upset by his presentation, then you might need to check yourself. And I didn’t accuse him of anything but taking himself too seriously, and thereby losing a little of the high ground.hardhat said:
Only the left says things like this. Who are the ones that are upset when the light is shined on them? You're also conflating things. He's not daddy and he's not trying to censor you or prevent you from watching reruns of rachel maddow.HHusky said:
Watched his 2:45 clip speaking at Stanford. Good speaker. Good timing and funny.hardhat said:
Having said that, he tries to conflate two different things. Satire and humor always have an element of truth to them, and ideologues are definitely humorless. All good points. He could have left it there and made his protest.
By arguing that "the truth is not hate speech", he removes himself from the satirist's role and takes the position that he is a "truth teller", a newsman. The satirist can take aim at things, but when he takes himself too seriously, he becomes one of the humorless as well.
It's why the Babylon Bee is occasionally funny but isn't usually. -
I'm sure some are triggered by it.hardhat said:
You just keep proving my point. Babylon Bee triggers the woke idiots and they big mad.HHusky said:
He does.hardhat said:
I didn't assume that you were upset, you said it was good. I don't need to check myself. In a normal world, a 'christian satire site' would probably have a small audience. But the intolerant left have made themselves such easy targets that it's surprisingly popular. I don't know if he takes himself too seriously, I haven't met him.HHusky said:
If you assumed I was upset by his presentation, then you might need to check yourself. And I didn’t accuse him of anything but taking himself too seriously, and thereby losing a little of the high ground.hardhat said:
Only the left says things like this. Who are the ones that are upset when the light is shined on them? You're also conflating things. He's not daddy and he's not trying to censor you or prevent you from watching reruns of rachel maddow.HHusky said:
Watched his 2:45 clip speaking at Stanford. Good speaker. Good timing and funny.hardhat said:
Having said that, he tries to conflate two different things. Satire and humor always have an element of truth to them, and ideologues are definitely humorless. All good points. He could have left it there and made his protest.
By arguing that "the truth is not hate speech", he removes himself from the satirist's role and takes the position that he is a "truth teller", a newsman. The satirist can take aim at things, but when he takes himself too seriously, he becomes one of the humorless as well.
It's why the Babylon Bee is occasionally funny but isn't usually.
I just think it's rarely funny. -
Oz is a very poor candidate a Trump special46XiJCAB said:
Mitch is going to leave Oz out to dry because he won't promise to wash his balls. Instead PA gets this loser and we get him for 6 years in the US Senate and Mitch is fine with that.RaceBannon said:Back to the horrible GOP candidates
Nevermind
Uniparty today
Uniparty tomorrow
Uniparty FOREVER
It's a game folks. And we're the pawns. -
RaceBannon said:
Somewhat back on subject has Chuckie Schumer complained about democrats candidates like the wife abuser in Georgia or does he attack the GOP candidates?
What the fuck is Mitch's problem?
Rhetorical
Mitch wants Walker to lose more than Warnock does.RaceBannon said:Somewhat back on subject has Chuckie Schumer complained about democrats candidates like the wife abuser in Georgia or does he attack the GOP candidates?
What the fuck is Mitch's problem?
Rhetorical -
Bee is greatHHusky said:
He does.hardhat said:
I didn't assume that you were upset, you said it was good. I don't need to check myself. In a normal world, a 'christian satire site' would probably have a small audience. But the intolerant left have made themselves such easy targets that it's surprisingly popular. I don't know if he takes himself too seriously, I haven't met him.HHusky said:
If you assumed I was upset by his presentation, then you might need to check yourself. And I didn’t accuse him of anything but taking himself too seriously, and thereby losing a little of the high ground.hardhat said:
Only the left says things like this. Who are the ones that are upset when the light is shined on them? You're also conflating things. He's not daddy and he's not trying to censor you or prevent you from watching reruns of rachel maddow.HHusky said:
Watched his 2:45 clip speaking at Stanford. Good speaker. Good timing and funny.hardhat said:
Having said that, he tries to conflate two different things. Satire and humor always have an element of truth to them, and ideologues are definitely humorless. All good points. He could have left it there and made his protest.
By arguing that "the truth is not hate speech", he removes himself from the satirist's role and takes the position that he is a "truth teller", a newsman. The satirist can take aim at things, but when he takes himself too seriously, he becomes one of the humorless as well.
It's why the Babylon Bee is occasionally funny but isn't usually. -
Well, you went to Oregon.Goduckies said:
Bee is greatHHusky said:
He does.hardhat said:
I didn't assume that you were upset, you said it was good. I don't need to check myself. In a normal world, a 'christian satire site' would probably have a small audience. But the intolerant left have made themselves such easy targets that it's surprisingly popular. I don't know if he takes himself too seriously, I haven't met him.HHusky said:
If you assumed I was upset by his presentation, then you might need to check yourself. And I didn’t accuse him of anything but taking himself too seriously, and thereby losing a little of the high ground.hardhat said:
Only the left says things like this. Who are the ones that are upset when the light is shined on them? You're also conflating things. He's not daddy and he's not trying to censor you or prevent you from watching reruns of rachel maddow.HHusky said:
Watched his 2:45 clip speaking at Stanford. Good speaker. Good timing and funny.hardhat said:
Having said that, he tries to conflate two different things. Satire and humor always have an element of truth to them, and ideologues are definitely humorless. All good points. He could have left it there and made his protest.
By arguing that "the truth is not hate speech", he removes himself from the satirist's role and takes the position that he is a "truth teller", a newsman. The satirist can take aim at things, but when he takes himself too seriously, he becomes one of the humorless as well.
It's why the Babylon Bee is occasionally funny but isn't usually.
No offense intended, of course. -
You could photoshop Washington Post over Babylon bee and Dazzler would applaud the headlines.
H is a very low IQ order taker, McDonald's material. -
Prestonluv said:
Overturning Roe vs Wade was just stupid for a plethora of reasons.
Namely the poor being the people who have too many babies in the first place. Now they will have more.
Just stupid. As a conservative I get upset when politicians let religion dictate policy.
This only hurts the right in the long run and rightfully so.
I find it fascinating that people think abortion is a religious issue. Simp thinking. @creepycoug am I right?Prestonluv said:Overturning Roe vs Wade was just stupid for a plethora of reasons.
Namely the poor being the people who have too many babies in the first place. Now they will have more.
Just stupid. As a conservative I get upset when politicians let religion dictate policy.
This only hurts the right in the long run and rightfully so. -
-
Sorry it's not academicly prowessed enough for you.HHusky said:
Well, you went to Oregon.Goduckies said:
Bee is greatHHusky said:
He does.hardhat said:
I didn't assume that you were upset, you said it was good. I don't need to check myself. In a normal world, a 'christian satire site' would probably have a small audience. But the intolerant left have made themselves such easy targets that it's surprisingly popular. I don't know if he takes himself too seriously, I haven't met him.HHusky said:
If you assumed I was upset by his presentation, then you might need to check yourself. And I didn’t accuse him of anything but taking himself too seriously, and thereby losing a little of the high ground.hardhat said:
Only the left says things like this. Who are the ones that are upset when the light is shined on them? You're also conflating things. He's not daddy and he's not trying to censor you or prevent you from watching reruns of rachel maddow.HHusky said:
Watched his 2:45 clip speaking at Stanford. Good speaker. Good timing and funny.hardhat said:
Having said that, he tries to conflate two different things. Satire and humor always have an element of truth to them, and ideologues are definitely humorless. All good points. He could have left it there and made his protest.
By arguing that "the truth is not hate speech", he removes himself from the satirist's role and takes the position that he is a "truth teller", a newsman. The satirist can take aim at things, but when he takes himself too seriously, he becomes one of the humorless as well.
It's why the Babylon Bee is occasionally funny but isn't usually.
No offense intended, of course. -
Cmon man. If we don’t t the religious peeps piping in than it’s not overturned. Even if overturning it technically isn’t a religious issue the process of getting it overturned is definitely spearheaded by the religious right.MikeDamone said:Prestonluv said:Overturning Roe vs Wade was just stupid for a plethora of reasons.
Namely the poor being the people who have too many babies in the first place. Now they will have more.
Just stupid. As a conservative I get upset when politicians let religion dictate policy.
This only hurts the right in the long run and rightfully so.
I find it fascinating that people think abortion is a religious issue. Simp thinking. @creepycoug am I right?Prestonluv said:Overturning Roe vs Wade was just stupid for a plethora of reasons.
Namely the poor being the people who have too many babies in the first place. Now they will have more.
Just stupid. As a conservative I get upset when politicians let religion dictate policy.
This only hurts the right in the long run and rightfully so.
My daughter lives in Texas and got raped. I’m going to be a grandpa now. Can’t wait. -
So either you're full of shit or she wants the baby. She has/had many opportunities for an abortion in Texas and out.Prestonluv said:
Cmon man. If we don’t t the religious peeps piping in than it’s not overturned. Even if overturning it technically isn’t a religious issue the process of getting it overturned is definitely spearheaded by the religious right.MikeDamone said:Prestonluv said:Overturning Roe vs Wade was just stupid for a plethora of reasons.
Namely the poor being the people who have too many babies in the first place. Now they will have more.
Just stupid. As a conservative I get upset when politicians let religion dictate policy.
This only hurts the right in the long run and rightfully so.
I find it fascinating that people think abortion is a religious issue. Simp thinking. @creepycoug am I right?Prestonluv said:Overturning Roe vs Wade was just stupid for a plethora of reasons.
Namely the poor being the people who have too many babies in the first place. Now they will have more.
Just stupid. As a conservative I get upset when politicians let religion dictate policy.
This only hurts the right in the long run and rightfully so.
My daughter lives in Texas and got raped. I’m going to be a grandpa now. Can’t wait.
-
California will pay for her flightPrestonluv said:
Cmon man. If we don’t t the religious peeps piping in than it’s not overturned. Even if overturning it technically isn’t a religious issue the process of getting it overturned is definitely spearheaded by the religious right.MikeDamone said:Prestonluv said:Overturning Roe vs Wade was just stupid for a plethora of reasons.
Namely the poor being the people who have too many babies in the first place. Now they will have more.
Just stupid. As a conservative I get upset when politicians let religion dictate policy.
This only hurts the right in the long run and rightfully so.
I find it fascinating that people think abortion is a religious issue. Simp thinking. @creepycoug am I right?Prestonluv said:Overturning Roe vs Wade was just stupid for a plethora of reasons.
Namely the poor being the people who have too many babies in the first place. Now they will have more.
Just stupid. As a conservative I get upset when politicians let religion dictate policy.
This only hurts the right in the long run and rightfully so.
My daughter lives in Texas and got raped. I’m going to be a grandpa now. Can’t wait.
Religious people vote. As is there right
It got overturned because it was made up to begin with
We have no right to privacy
Allegedly we have a right against unreasonable search and seizure unless law enforcement lies to the judge
Abortion was already legal in states before Roe
I get it that low info types think the religious right is a Cristo fascist threat. Democrats do messaging
Mike and I don't fall for it -
If you meant this to be as funny as it is, you could have done better than Oregon.Goduckies said:
Sorry it's not academicly prowessed enough for you.HHusky said:
Well, you went to Oregon.Goduckies said:
Bee is greatHHusky said:
He does.hardhat said:
I didn't assume that you were upset, you said it was good. I don't need to check myself. In a normal world, a 'christian satire site' would probably have a small audience. But the intolerant left have made themselves such easy targets that it's surprisingly popular. I don't know if he takes himself too seriously, I haven't met him.HHusky said:
If you assumed I was upset by his presentation, then you might need to check yourself. And I didn’t accuse him of anything but taking himself too seriously, and thereby losing a little of the high ground.hardhat said:
Only the left says things like this. Who are the ones that are upset when the light is shined on them? You're also conflating things. He's not daddy and he's not trying to censor you or prevent you from watching reruns of rachel maddow.HHusky said:
Watched his 2:45 clip speaking at Stanford. Good speaker. Good timing and funny.hardhat said:
Having said that, he tries to conflate two different things. Satire and humor always have an element of truth to them, and ideologues are definitely humorless. All good points. He could have left it there and made his protest.
By arguing that "the truth is not hate speech", he removes himself from the satirist's role and takes the position that he is a "truth teller", a newsman. The satirist can take aim at things, but when he takes himself too seriously, he becomes one of the humorless as well.
It's why the Babylon Bee is occasionally funny but isn't usually.
No offense intended, of course.
If not. Yikes! -
You are correct. God or no God, humanity has established a most basic set of social rules and foundational morality. Whether or not "You can't kill me if I'm not threatening you" is objectively hard wired into the universe vis a vis Plato's forms or the word of God is of no consequence to abortion whatsoever. In fact, correctly presented, it is an entirely non-sectarian discussion. Who you pray to or whether you do or not is up to you and what restricting rules you do or do not follow is entirely up to you and of no interest to me.MikeDamone said:Prestonluv said:Overturning Roe vs Wade was just stupid for a plethora of reasons.
Namely the poor being the people who have too many babies in the first place. Now they will have more.
Just stupid. As a conservative I get upset when politicians let religion dictate policy.
This only hurts the right in the long run and rightfully so.
I find it fascinating that people think abortion is a religious issue. Simp thinking. @creepycoug am I right?Prestonluv said:Overturning Roe vs Wade was just stupid for a plethora of reasons.
Namely the poor being the people who have too many babies in the first place. Now they will have more.
Just stupid. As a conservative I get upset when politicians let religion dictate policy.
This only hurts the right in the long run and rightfully so.
The discussion of abortion is really no different, at all, than discussing what the laws for murder should be.
Amazing to me that this still eludes so many here. Stunning really.
