Fresh Start Political Thread

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by mooby

Remind me again what important decisions were handed down during that time that showed a clear and obvious contempt for established law and/or precedent?

Roe versus Wade.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by mooby

I'm not talking about the majority, I'm talking about 4 dems, 4 republicans, and 1 moderate - which in this case would be John Roberts. That was as fair as it gets. The highest court in this country is worthless if it's not fair.

Now it's 6-3 - unless you are saying there is twice as many conservatives in this country as liberals there is 0% chance any liberal policy that isn't established by precedent (and even that is not a sure thing anymore) will be entertained.

It will be one sided until the end of time now. A democrat is never going to nominate a conservative judge or visa-versa, to try to be fair and even. Not sure if this was ever done or it was just more balanced than now as a coincidence.

Everything is political now and that's not on the Supreme Court that it got this way. They don't nominate themselves or play a role on getting confirmed.

They are on the court and need to do their jobs right regardless of what way they lean.

The problem lies with our government and us. Now every time a decision doesn't go our way it's not because there is no chance in hell they made an unbiased decision that they believe is the correct decision, its because they are a biased liberal/conservative playing party politics. This goes back to well before this Texas law.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by MTK

All this hot air for something very unlikely to happen.

+1

Packing the court wouldn't even be entertained if conservatives respected the idea that SCOTUS is above partisan politics.

Even right now it's only entertained by the most hardcore libs. Good luck getting Joe Manchin to sign off on it.

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Your atheism is no less of a religion than my Christianity. Hopefully you find Jesus one day. I'll say a prayer for you today.

There are 33 millions "gods"in Hinduism? Do you also believe in them? Do you believe in Islam? Moromism and the goal plates?

No?

Fact is the difference btw me and you is that I dont believe in 1 more god than you. Just 1 more. (This is from a comedian). But this isnt about the validity of religion or ones right to practice their religion. No matter how hard you try and steer the conversation towards some false equivalency "freedom of religion". This is about freedom from religion.

No one is saying you cant be christian or go to church. But you know that.

I think you can understand the importance of separation from church and state, importance of justices to apply US law and not the bible. You just choose not to. You talk in bad faith.

You play obtuse on here sometimes and it makes talking with you pointless.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

There are 33 millions "gods"in Hinduism? Do you also believe in them? Do you believe in Islam? Moromism and the goal plates?

No?

Fact is the difference btw me and you is that I dont believe in 1 more god than you. Just 1 more. (This is from a comedian). But this isnt about the validity of religion or ones right to practice their religion. No matter how hard you try and steer the conversation towards some false equivalency "freedom of religion". This is about freedom from religion.

No one is saying you cant be christian or go to church. But you know that.

I think you can understand the importance of separation from church and state, importance of justices to apply US law and not the bible. You just choose not to. You talk in bad faith.

You play obtuse on here sometimes and it makes talking with you pointless.

All of those religions are no less of a religion than Christianity either. I don't get your point. I don't care what people choose to believe. And I'd bet they get most of their values and morals from their beliefs too. My point was that if you believe in 0 gods or 1 million gods, those are no less of a religion than any other belief system.

There is nothing in the constitution that says freedom from religion or separation of church and state. But I think you know that and are just being obtuse.

Your basic argument, and we know you only attack Christianity, is that if you believe in God, your values are irrelevant and shouldn't be allowed in making decisions. Call me whatever you want, this is your argument.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Roe versus Wade.

And who was the driving force behind reforming state abortion law that started happening before Roe v. Wade made abortion a national policy?

Christians. Who were basing the policy off Christianity. Which has no place in politics.

It's a matter of privacy now, as it was then. Imagine thinking you have the right to invade someone else's privacy just because you don't like what they do in their free time.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

I don't get why abortion is the number 1 most important thing to the democratic party as a whole. It really is mind-blowing. Throw the whole system out because 1 state passed a law banning abortions after 6 weeks.

You really think that is what this is about??? This is about a political factor wanting to control the SC for their own purpose's. The RIGHT WING NUTS, TEA PARTY< whatever you want to call them want to over turn laws that have been ruled on for Decades. Republican's chose Abortion.......not Democrat's be honest at least.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

There are 33 millions "gods"in Hinduism? Do you also believe in them? Do you believe in Islam? Moromism and the goal plates?

No?

Fact is the difference btw me and you is that I dont believe in 1 more god than you. Just 1 more. (This is from a comedian). But this isnt about the validity of religion or ones right to practice their religion. No matter how hard you try and steer the conversation towards some false equivalency "freedom of religion". This is about freedom from religion.

No one is saying you cant be christian or go to church. But you know that.

I think you can understand the importance of separation from church and state, importance of justices to apply US law and not the bible. You just choose not to. You talk in bad faith.

You play obtuse on here sometimes and it makes talking with you pointless.

...........he ain't playing.

[punch it in]

Greg Abbott might have jumped Trump on the dumb ladder.

[mooby]

Not my argument but I agree with it.

[sdskinsfan2001]

https://www.frc.org/brochure/the-bes...ular-audiences

The link has a PDF. Doubt anyone will read it. But what the hell. It's written towards giving me secular arguments to share with others.

Key part about life begging at conception:

At the moment when a human sperm penetrates a human ovum, or egg, generally in the upper portion of the Fallopian Tube, a new entity comes into existence. “Zygote” is the name of the first cell formed at conception, the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo, followed by the “Morula” and “Blastocyst” stages.

Is it human? Is it alive? Is it just a cell or is it an actual organism, a “being?” These are logical questions.

The zygote is composed of human DNA and other human molecules, so its nature is undeniably human and not some other species.This DNA includes a complete “design,” guiding not only early development but even hereditary attributes that will appear in childhood and adulthood, from hair, sex, and eye color to personality traits.

It is also quite clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. Finally, is the human zygote merely a new kind of cell or is it a human organism; that is, a human being? Scientists define an organism as a
complex structure of interdependent elements constituted to carry on the activities of life by separately-functioning but mutually dependent organs.

The human zygote meets this definition with ease. Once formed, it initiates a complex sequence of events to ready it for continued development and growth: The zygote acts immediately and decisively to initiate a program of development that will, if uninterrupted by accident, disease, or external intervention, proceed seamlessly through formation of the definitive body, birth, childhood, adolescence, maturity, and aging,
ending with death. This coordinated behavior is the very hallmark of an organism.

By contrast, while a mere collection of human cells may carry on the activities of cellular life, it will not exhibit coordinated interactions directed towards a higher level of organization.

My note - All this being said on both sides, I'm sure not 1 person here has changed their mind 1% on either side. Standard Warpath political argument procedure. Go Tampa!

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by mooby

I understand why it isn't your argument as it isn't a good one. The counter argument is the woman already donated her uterus (Ie it wasn't an immaculate conception) so using this analogy she would be arguing that she wants her bone marrow, organ etc back after it has already been provided to the other individual.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mooby

Not my argument but I agree with it.

I will admit I never heard it put in that way, interesting for sure.

[skinsfan69]

Kamala Harris is about as useful as a can of beans. That is all I wanted to say today about politics.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Kamala Harris is about as useful as a can of beans. That is all I wanted to say today about politics.

What do you want to see from her? Just curious not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing.