Supreme Court Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lizard person wants more child sacrifices
61A9B70A-0542-4846-9378-DDC6B3666D03.jpeg
 
If we're going to use this analogy, even the most vigilant person will occasionally knock over a glass. We should be able to clean up spills but still judge clumsy fools who are constantly having to do it.
I agree, and I do judge careless, thoughtless, irresponsible people. Harshly.
 
You want the government to get rid of abortions. The best way to do that is to force vasectomies on men.
This logic is like saying "You want the government to stop car theft. The best way to do that is for the government to euthanize all of its citizens. Then there would be nobody to steal the cars"
 
How is that possible when SCOTUS said its over?
I expect you'll see a lot of this soon, grandstanding hacks who know they'll lose but want to be famous and get in the good graces of the pro-choice grift-machine too. Last week another Louisiana judge (federal) decided the state voting map must be redrawn - by her alone - to specifically add another black congressional district. That was recently ruled blatantly unconstitutional too.
 
You want the government to get rid of abortions. The best way to do that is to force vasectomies on men.
The best way to do that is to offer a stipend for doing that voluntarily. Most of the United States is living paycheck to paycheck, this would help the economy along with removing the acrimony of everyone fagging out over dead babies.
 
This logic is like saying "You want the government to stop car theft. The best way to do that is for the government to euthanize all of its citizens. Then there would be nobody to steal the cars"
Not true at all. Forcing vasectomies on men would all but eliminate unwanted pregnancies. They're reversible, too, so the man could get it reversed when he's ready to have children. If you want to eliminate abortions, this is the way to do it.

Has been for me. Step up your game, nigga.
My friend got his girlfriend pregnant with pull out. I used to do that, too. Birth control is where it's at anyway. Who wants to pull out?

The best way to do that is to offer a stipend for doing that voluntarily. Most of the United States is living paycheck to paycheck, this would help the economy along with removing the acrimony of everyone fagging out over dead babies.
The government could pay for it. It'd easily pay for itself with less welfare and such
 
The best way to do that is to offer a stipend for doing that voluntarily. Most of the United States is living paycheck to paycheck, this would help the economy along with removing the acrimony of everyone fagging out over dead babies.
I mean, people voluntarily got the coof shot, so sterilization in exchange for $300 is not that unlikely. You know there's a demographic that will go crazy for that. Problem is, in a generation there won't be anyone left to vote democrat.
 
Not true at all. Forcing vasectomies on men would all but eliminate unwanted pregnancies. They're reversible, too, so the man could get it reversed when he's ready to have children. If you want to eliminate abortions, this is the way to do it.
Forcing euthenasia on everybody would all but eliminate car theft. If you want to eliminate car theft, that's the way to do it.
There is a fundamental difference between forcing people to do things, vs "forcing" them not to do something.
 
Or, maybe, just maybe, this woman disagrees with you and your fellow Republicans on the issue.

I'd even say you and your fellow Republicans are the ones who are programmed.

Ewww. sick burn, Hulkster. I am now putting you in the ranks of dumb, ignorant people who do not show they know even basic of the issues and thus should not be allowed to have an opinion at all. Reminds me of that line by Dr Lecter "If you cannot follow along in a conversation, better not join in at all.." If you read my posts with any care, you would know and understand that my focus has not been abortion as a policy preference, but whether the Constitution correctly recognizes a constitutional right. Dobbs v Jackson Women's Healthy correctly says it does not. That does not mean it bans abortion, or takes any position on the matter, but should be decided by the democratic process (probably at the state level).

You do believe in democracy, don't you, Hulkster? I don't (I think we need hard-right authoritarianism to prevent the lefties from going from the soft tyranny they are indulging in now to a hard one once they consolidate power Too many bug-eyed lemmings like you who do not have even a middle school level understanding of US civics to satisfy the educated citizenry that a democratic republic presupposed, but I digress. I know that you still believe in the democratic process, Hulkster, so why not join me and tell the sorority slut at Arizona state the truth about what this decision means and engage in the democratic process like a good flag-waving, patriotic American.

PS Roddy Rowdy Piper was always the man.

Meh, that's all women since the advent of pop culture.
Many, not all, The numbers dwindle though with social media....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back