Go republicans! Let's restrict womens bodies again!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
The 18th Amendment, establishing prohibition of alcohol sales also was heavily linked to the 16th Amendment, establishing an income tax.

The 16th was ratified in 1913. The 18th followed it in 1919. Prior to the 16th, most federal and state revenue came from tariffs instead of taxes. Often the biggest source of tariff income was from liquor sales. Only after the 16th Amendment allowed a new revenue source could liquor sales be prohibited.
 
Old Onkyo

Old Onkyo

Audioholic General
Rather a tired line at this point, but until man starts having kids than I don't really take them serious on the issue. Encouraging her to have the child vs forcing them to. State rights. However, the parts I've read about a state preventing her to travel outstate isn't really state rights anymore and more along the lines of statism/totalitarianism IMO. Especially if they pay for it out of their own pocket.
It seems quite over reaching. If you are against abortion, don’t get one. If you are a male, stfu.
nothing about this is democratic.
The idea that your neighbor has legal standing to sue you because you have assisted someone in obtaining an abortion in another state is draconian.
This is a partisan political decision. It’s ramifications will be felt for decades.
1656208250350.jpeg
 
Old Onkyo

Old Onkyo

Audioholic General
For those that think I have a racial problem…I do!
http://instagr.am/p/CfQI0WDlH3b/
She thanked Trump for , “the victory for white life” isn’t that really what this is all about? Check my history, I have been saying since 2016, make amerikkka great again was a clarion call for white folk to take their country back.
 
Last edited:
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
For those that think I have a racial problem…I do!
http://instagr.am/p/CfQI0WDlH3b/
She thanked Trump for , “the victory for white life” isn’t that really what this is all about? Check my history, I have been saying since 2016, make amerikkka great again was a clarion call for white folk to take their country back.
I'm confused how is this racial? Not being sarcastic either how does this benefit whites?

I mean I'm not trying to sound cold blooded here but if I was a racist conservative I would never overturn Roe vs Wade. I'd want disadvantaged minorities killing those babies all day long. That's less democratic voters I'd have to deal with.

Also I'd let Roe vs Wade stand to pacify people of other races and disadvantaged minorities. And since a big % of Americans of all races oppose overturning Roe vs Wade I'd want to keep my white vote which is over 50% of the population still and try to entice suckers from other minorities. I'd say see? I'm not as bad as you thought I was supposed to be.

This decision being Partisan and political yep I totally see it. But racist I'm not following because it's not logical. It was Lyndon Johnson when black voters were finally gaining power who was famously quoted as saying they think they can get all uppity because there vote is making an impact. I'll have them (I won't say the word) voting democratic for the next 200 years. And he set up a lot of programs that pulled in the vote but didn't address the problems.

Now the democratic party is not still racist but that's how a racist white conservative would do it. Let people keep just enough things like Roe vs Wade that they will let themselves be controlled.

Now if you mean using this as a springboard to eventually manipulate other laws that will affect minority communities I could see that and people will just have to be vigilant and look out for it.

I'm kindoff missing the logic here. I'm not talking about the redneck white trash hillbilly that is dirt poor. I'm talking about the rich white elites. The 1% I can't see them ever agreeing with overturning Roe vs Wade. They've stayed on top for a reason they may be racist but they are smart. I cany see them doing something that could backfire like this.

I'm really trying to understand this but from a logical viewpoint it looks like religious political catholic conservative judges that want to make everyone live under they're moral code. Genuinely trying to understand here any feedback appreciated
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
I'm guessing it's a stall tactic. Shorten abortions to the first trimester (agreed), but have to make an appointment for a pill (disagree). Thankfully the science has come a long way where you can just take a pill. Also I think in some cases it's that elder who regretted having an abortion when they were young and now want to do right for their daughter. However, particularly the young, the decision they choose can only be there's, and whatever regret they might feel later about the decision is a part of liberty. The essence of liberty is things don't always work out the way you want them to.


Gov. Bill Lee signed a bill on Thursday increasing criminal penalties for anyone distributing abortion medication through telehealth or mail, amid the U.S. Supreme Court's contemplation of ending nationwide abortion rights.

The bill prohibits any distribution of abortion medication except when prescribing is done in person by a physician. The physician is not required to monitor a patient during or after taking the medication, except for a required follow-up appointment within two weeks.

The legislation, approved by lawmakers this year, also makes it a Class E felony punishable by a fine of up to $50,000 if that procedure is not followed.

A medicated abortion is an increasingly common method to terminate early-term pregnancies up to 10 weeks. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration approved the delivery and telehealth dispensing of the medication amid access concerns during the pandemic.

More than 75% of Tennessee abortions occurred within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy in 2018, according to the most recent available state data. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed medical or chemical abortion as a safe procedure.
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
What also confuses me is people keep talking like this is some kind of master plan. Trump and his base are too stupid to pull that off.

It's more like dumb luck to me. Conservatives got damn lucky the Supreme Court fell into they're hands. If Hillary had won in 2016 we'd have had 3 liberal judges in that court right now.

I think Trump and conservatives got lucky its like when the Spurs hit the jackpot drafting both David Robinson and getting Tim Duncan as well. Republicans hit the lottery but they wouldn't have hit it at all if Hillary had won the election.
 
Old Onkyo

Old Onkyo

Audioholic General
I'm confused how is this racial? Not being sarcastic either how does this benefit whites?

I mean I'm not trying to sound cold blooded here but if I was a racist conservative I would never overturn Roe vs Wade. I'd want disadvantaged minorities killing those babies all day long. That's less democratic voters I'd have to deal with.

Also I'd let Roe vs Wade stand to pacify people of other races and disadvantaged minorities. And since a big % of Americans of all races oppose overturning Roe vs Wade I'd want to keep my white vote which is over 50% of the population still and try to entice suckers from other minorities. I'd say see? I'm not as bad as you thought I was supposed to be.

This decision being Partisan and political yep I totally see it. But racist I'm not following because it's not logical. It was Lyndon Johnson when black voters were finally gaining power who was famously quoted as saying they think they can get all uppity because there vote is making an impact. I'll have them (I won't say the word) voting democratic for the next 200 years. And he set up a lot of programs that pulled in the vote but didn't address the problems.

Now the democratic party is not still racist but that's how a racist white conservative would do it. Let people keep just enough things like Roe vs Wade that they will let themselves be controlled.

Now if you mean using this as a springboard to eventually manipulate other laws that will affect minority communities I could see that and people will just have to be vigilant and look out for it.

I'm kindoff missing the logic here. I'm not talking about the redneck white trash hillbilly that is dirt poor. I'm talking about the rich white elites. The 1% I can't see them ever agreeing with overturning Roe vs Wade. They've stayed on top for a reason they may be racist but they are smart. I cany see them doing something that could backfire like this.

I'm really trying to understand this but from a logical viewpoint it looks like religious political catholic conservative judges that want to make everyone live under they're moral code. Genuinely trying to understand here any feedback appreciated
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all WHITE men are created equal. THEY are endowed by THEIR creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happineSS.

Any interpretation of the constitution, and Declaration of Independence, outside of the historical context in which these documents were drafted, is the highest form of ignorance and deception.
 
Last edited:
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all WHITE men are created equal. THEY are endowed by THEIR creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happineSS.

Any interpretation of the constitution, and Declaration of Independence, outside of the historical context in which these documents were drafted, is the highest form of ignorance and deception.
I don't think white America is particularly racist. Nor the RNP. I'd look more towards Crowder, Tucker, Trump and the alt-right.
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all WHITE men are created equal. THEY are endowed by THEIR creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happineSS.

Any interpretation of the constitution, and Declaration of Independence, outside of the historical context in which these documents were drafted, is the highest form of ignorance and deception.
This is an unfortunate and erroneous view of history. If you read the Federalist papers you will know the founders deeply struggled with slavery. They could not help the world as it was in 1783. They were incorporating the first republic in 1,000 years so defacto almost all "white" people were subject to either a monarch or tribal leader in 1783. They were not slaves but their liberty and freedom was severely restricted. Yes slavery took too long to be abolished in the United States, but when it was finally decided that it would be, 600,000 to 850,000 died to make it so. That was 2 to 3% of the US population.

The facts are quite different. If your "Howard Zinn" view of history was correct, blacks and native Americans would not have been able to own slaves which they did.
 
Old Onkyo

Old Onkyo

Audioholic General
My man, I was in the 4th grade when I first got suspended for not placing my hand over my heart and reciting the pledge of allegiance. That was early 70’s.
Despite your efforts to whitemansplain it to me, I will pass on more of the bullsch.
I didn’t mention slavery. But you know that….
 
Last edited:
Old Onkyo

Old Onkyo

Audioholic General
This is an unfortunate and erroneous view of history. If you read the Federalist papers you will know the founders deeply struggled with slavery. They could not help the world as it was in 1783. They were incorporating the first republic in 1,000 years so defacto almost all "white" people were subject to either a monarch or tribal leader in 1783. They were not slaves but their liberty and freedom was severely restricted. Yes slavery took too long to be abolished in the United States, but when it was finally decided that it would be, 600,000 to 850,000 died to make it so. That was 2 to 3% of the US population.

The facts are quite different. If your "Howard Zinn" view of history was correct, blacks and native Americans would not have been able to own slaves which they did.
help me massa please…if I read the federalist papers….the facts are different, my Howard zinn view of history….
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
That's only if you equate murder with abortion.
Thars a great point and a very good link. I suspect that's what is going to happen here. It's one thing to pass it. Paying for enforcing it? That's another. Texas doesn't even pay to upgrade there power grid. I bet they'll be singing a different tune when they see what its going to cost to enforce this
The TX power grid is their own, it's technically not part of the US grid, AFAIK.

Have you seen anything about 'Minimum monthly charge" in Florida? Other states are looking into it and it came about because people with Solar power weren't paying much, especially when they sold power to the utilities. The people interviewed were surprised by the new charge but they really shouldn't be- the utilities are government-sanctioned monopolies. Remember them telling us to use less energy by switching to CFL and then LED bulbs? Have our bills decreased, F&ck no.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
Have you seen anything about 'Minimum monthly charge" in Florida? Other states are looking into it and it came about because people with Solar power weren't paying much, especially when they sold power to the utilities.
I don’t see any issue with people having to pay for use of the electrical grid.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
This is an unfortunate and erroneous view of history. If you read the Federalist papers you will know the founders deeply struggled with slavery. They could not help the world as it was in 1783. They were incorporating the first republic in 1,000 years so defacto almost all "white" people were subject to either a monarch or tribal leader in 1783. They were not slaves but their liberty and freedom was severely restricted. Yes slavery took too long to be abolished in the United States, but when it was finally decided that it would be, 600,000 to 850,000 died to make it so. That was 2 to 3% of the US population.

The facts are quite different. If your "Howard Zinn" view of history was correct, blacks and native Americans would not have been able to own slaves which they did.
If the founders struggled, they didn't struggle very hard.

And, they didn't establish the first republic in a thousand years, as a republic is - in essence - a nonmonarchical form of government. There were/are many republics established between the Greek and American versions. And, when the USA was founded, only land-owning white men were granted suffrage, which differed little from the UK in that respect.
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
The TX power grid is their own, it's technically not part of the US grid, AFAIK.

Have you seen anything about 'Minimum monthly charge" in Florida? Other states are looking into it and it came about because people with Solar power weren't paying much, especially when they sold power to the utilities. The people interviewed were surprised by the new charge but they really shouldn't be- the utilities are government-sanctioned monopolies. Remember them telling us to use less energy by switching to CFL and then LED bulbs? Have our bills decreased, F&ck no.
I haven't seen that I'll have to check it out
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top