gut

On Jun 27, 2022:

gut replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 12:05 am
posted by kizer permanente

Lol Gut  never failing to coming thru with his preconceived stereotypes  to make his argument.  

hEy gUyz… pOoR pEoPlE sHoUld uSE tHeIr hEAlTh InSuRaNce FoR bIrTh CoNtRol 

You have no idea how idiotic that sounds … that’s how we know how out of touch your are with reality.  Jfc  lol you think everyone just lives like you and your little bubble friends don’t you? 


LOL... You've not presented an actual counter-argument.  Ad hominem attack, mental diarrhea on display.

And I didn't say "pOoR pEoPlE sHoUld uSE tHeIr hEAlTh InSuRaNce FoR bIrTh CoNtRol".  Rather, you proved my point that idiots like you can't be bothered to read.  You misunderstand something and your brain instantly shuts off...emotions go to Defcon 0.111.  And then you flame people with stupidity.

You've done this over and over.  You are so over the top triggered that you can't even read and process coherently what people are saying.

Take a timeout.  A lot of deep breaths.  And then some more time. Then re-read what's actually being said before proceeding to bukkake the board with your random incoherences.


On Jun 26, 2022:

gut replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 11:55 pm
posted by majorspark

This is not going to happen.  Women are not going to be dying in droves.

It's almost as if people regurgitate left-wing talking points without a modicum of logical thought.

gut repped a post in "Progressives, part 3..." at 11:55 pm
posted by kizer permanente
posted by jmog

How many pregnancies are terminated so they don’t end up in death. Bro.. it’s like you’re not even trying to be honest? Ectopic pregnancIes alone make up 100,000 a year in the US.  And you’re over here like … who gives a fuck if 100k women die a year.. it’s statistically  low!!  lol  wow. 



This is not going to happen.  Women are not going to be dying in droves.

gut repped a post in "Progressives, part 3..." at 11:54 pm
posted by Fletch

he has gone full retard

Apparently it’s just the teachers in here who love that word, you and geeblock both are morons.




gut replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 11:46 pm
posted by ptown_trojans_1

Where do those rights begin? That question is now on the table. How far are you willing to go? .

Most, if not all, these issues would fail to pass constitutional scrutiny.  Which is what most people should really care about.

Roe v. Wade was overturned on the the basis of an improper decison relying on federal freedoms not codified.

It's not rocket science, people.  The SCOTUS didn't make law, they unmade improper law.  You can still have all the abortion you like, you just have to elect state and/or federal represetnatives to make that happen.

On Jun 25, 2022:

gut repped a post in "A win for the good guys (guns)" at 01:39 pm
posted by queencitybuckeye

Not really. In the case of the New York gun laws, one had to prove that their right to carry had a specific purpose. That is far different than there being a small number of reasons that one CAN'T say something.


It would be like "Mr. Laley, we understand that you want to assert your right to free speech. Please submit what you are planning to say, and we'll get back to you to grant or deny permission".

I’m not talking about the NY Law. I’m talking about restrictions on our rights since the Constitution and BOR was enacted. They absolutely have been restricted, so saying it’s not a question just because it’s a right isn’t a valid argument.


gut repped a post in "Non-political memes, funny videos, etc." at 01:37 pm

lion noahs ark sht cruise great buffett


gut replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 01:24 pm
posted by kizer permanente

Do you know exactly how many people are classified as “poorest of the poor” by you? How many people are living at and below poverty levels? How many people are on gov assistance. You make it sound like there’s a couple people in the city lol. 

Yes I do.  Do you have any idea how many cars are on the road in this country?   The vast majority of people in this country that need a car, have one.  Pro tip: The Poverty level is an arbitrarily defined one - there's no universal definition, it's what a country decides to call it.  The poverty level in the US for a single person is min. wage at about 20-25 hours per week.  So get a 2nd job if you need to pay for an abortion.

And if you want to be really technical, the vast majority of these pregnancies could be prevented with proper use of birth control.  In most cases, if women's insurance doesn't provide birth control or condoms, they qualify for programs that do.  And contraception combined with condoms is virtually 100% effective.

Most people can and do have the means to travel for an abortion.  It just means not getting that new Iphone, Xbox, or a lower tier of cable.  As I said, there are also charities that will provide assistance (or maybe all the money about to pour into Super PACs could be put to better direct use?).

In any event, the travel is not the bigger issue.  It's likely the state medicare programs won't cover the procedure now.

gut replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 01:12 pm
posted by Fletch

Yea the huge uproar at the federal level is just people either being stupid about facts or misinofrmed


It's kind of a mirror image of the proposed AR bans.  It wasn't going to make a difference [empty virtu signaling], and it really wasn't going to impact anyone still with plenty of semi-auto rifles to choose from.

And, yet, we get over-the-top, hyerbolic hysterical reactions when nothing really changes.  Except in this case it's a much more inconvenient and traumatic experience for women undergoing a deeply personal and emotional decision.

I applaud this decision simply because I prefer a SCOTUS that interprets, rather than makes, law.

But from a practical perspective, I oppose laws that accomplish nothing more than virtue signaling.  Now, the SCOTUS didn't make law here, but they undid law improperly made.  Congress would have, should have could have codified this...but that's probably not happening for a long time.

On Jun 24, 2022:

gut replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 08:30 pm
posted by kizer permanente

You act like the average person has access to get across town. Let alone one day DRIVE from their house. You do realize poor people exist right?

The average person, absolutely.  Only the poorest of the poor don't have a car.  There are also these things called buses ($250 round trip from Baton Rouge to Chicago - cheaper than your gas costs even if you had a car), and something called Amtrak.  As I said, I don't have a problem if it's slightly less convenient and more expensive than ordering condoms from Amazon.

And, yes, I recognize the most economically disadvantaged may be negatively affected by this. I've said that before - people just make up what I think instead of paying attention to what I've actually posted.

I'm sure there will be charities and other means of getting the financial support they need to make this happen.

gut replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 08:19 pm
posted by geeblock

employers such as like dicks did today will announce money (4000$) for travel to get an abortion ect.

Somewhat unrelated, I'm just curious how that would work.  I get how insurance might cover the medical costs no questions asked, but I wonder how someone is going to get reimbursed for the travel.  Asking them to go thru HR seems both insensitive and a violation of privacy.
gut repped a post in "Progressives, part 3..." at 08:14 pm
posted by kizer permanente

You can’t possibly be confident that every woman who wants one would still be able to get one. If you are, you’re not living in reality. 


I think most will still get abortions. Clinics will move to the border of states that have banned them, employers such as like dicks did today will announce money (4000$) for travel to get an abortion ect. Looking statistically places where abortions are banned have almost the same rate of abortions as places where they are legal. 


gut replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 08:14 pm
posted by kizer permanente

Maybe in your California bubble. Not most of “the left” . I know that’s hard for you to understand lol.

And, yet, for all the crying nowhere in the US is a woman more than a 1-day drive from access to an abortion. That's an inconvenience, not denial of access.

As I've said several times in the past, I think it's a dumb law to vary by state.  But if that's a problem, then ask your Congress to take action.

gut replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 07:57 pm
posted by ptown_trojans_1

Your view and others on here are just narrow and filled with your own assumptions of who gets abortions and why.

That's your opinion.  I understand everything about who gets abortions and why.  Stop pretending that people who disagree with you are ignorant.  No one on here, save maybe Spock or QO, has ever insinuated women only use abortion as emergency contraception.

I would suggest just maybe, perhaps, people's arguments are much more nuanced than you appear interested in understanding.

gut replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 07:51 pm
posted by kizer permanente

It doesn’t. That’s why he we depend on the SCOTUS to save us from mouth breathers 50 years ago,  trying to set us back in time.  Unfortunately we let the mouth breathers get a majority with fellow mouth breathers.

I am very confident that every woman that really wants an abortion will still be able to get an abortion.  I really don't agree that it should be as convenient and easy as ordering from Amazon.

Shoot, their go-fund-me pages will probably raise $10k, and they'll opt to go to Hawaii instead of Illinois for the procedure.

gut negged a post in "Progressives, part 3..." at 07:50 pm
posted by iclfan2

Feel free to show me where abortion is mentioned. I’ll wait. 


It doesn’t. That’s why he we depend on the SCOTUS to save us from mouth breathers 50 years ago,  trying to set us back in time.  Unfortunately we let the mouth breathers get a majority with fellow mouth breathers. 


gut replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 07:42 pm

LOL, I just realized the irony of this decision is the Left suddenly cares deeply & passionately about folks living in fly-over land.

gut replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 07:24 pm
posted by kizer permanente
Fify

That's not accurate.  The "strict" or "constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution is usually ascribed to a "conservative" perspective, which is often wrongly equated with a right-wing view.  That is a non-federalist, limited role for the SCOTUS which everyone should favor for a non-elected body with unlimited terms.

As I mentioned, the Left rejects this because the Left relies on the SCOTUS to step in when the legislative process fails them.  The SCOTUS is the least representative body, in several respects, and the tail should not wag the dog.

Clearly we're doing a very poor job of teaching civics.

gut replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 06:54 pm
posted by iclfan2

That pesky right, reading the constitution and knowing what rights should be left to the states. Bastards 


It's beyond pathetic that Congress is so broken that they've essentially abdicated their legislative duties to the Executive and Judicial branches.

gut replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 06:52 pm
posted by geeblock

So if enough people in a state elect folks who ban gay marriage you good with that? Where does it stop by your logic as long as enough people believe something you could ban interracial marriage. U good with that?

Race is a federally protected class, as defined by federal law.

"As defined by" is important, because federal law has not defined sexual orientation as a protected class.  Some states have defined it as such, but that is only binding in that state (and has not faced a federal test, to my knowledge).  There may be some basis in common law for the SCOTUS to legalize gay marriage, but otherwise that is legislating from the bench because the statute they are interpreting does not define sexual orientation as a protected class.

What the SCOTUS is clearly signaling is that they will not be legislating from the bench.  The Dems would LOVE to use a liberal bench to circumvent the legislative process.  Don't like it, then win elections and change the laws the right way.

Login

Register

Already have an account? Login