like_that

posted by kizer permanente

No I'm telling you if you didn't go to optional workouts that werent really optional you weren't going to play lol.. or did you not play football?

For a moment of lulz, this made me think about this video:

Football coaches when you miss an “optional” workout @theAIRapp pic.twitter.com/ayiPeKGpX9

— Brenden Clinton (@MrGo30) June 22, 2022

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

This same coach was also performing third trimester abortions at midfield immediately following games.  Players were encouraged, but not required to assist.

While blasting his AR-15 into the sky. 

This same coach was also performing third trimester abortions at midfield immediately following games.  Players were encouraged, but not required to assist.

posted by kizer permanente

I can see your point and agree with you I guess  

I will also agree that if there was clear evidence he coerced them then it should have been 9-0 against him.  That would have been a violation of those kids’ 1st amendment rights to not pray.

posted by kizer permanente

I went to parochial schools so of course we did. Public school is a different animal though. My former coach lost his job at a public school for it. And not saying this guy would.. but also not saying a guy who makes it a point to go to mid field to pray so everyone can see him pray wouldn't. 

If we are going by anecdotes, I went to public school and coached at public schools. Not to mention competed/coaches against both public and private (I am sure you did as well).  Never once did I see anyone get forced into prayer. You’re making this case seem like it will lead to some grand pray to play scheme.

If you want to argue that the coach is a douche for doing it so publicly, go for it. That’s your opinion. As for the case, it should have been 9-0, regardless of who he was praying for.

And if we are doing whataboutism, there is no doubt that you and gblock would be celebrating if this case were about taking a knee during the anthem. Try to be consistent for me, just once.

posted by kizer permanente

No I'm telling you if you didn't go to optional workouts that werent really optional you weren't going to play lol.. or did you not play football?

Yeah, no shit. Did you play football?  Team prayers are very common on most teams (not just in football).  I’m on board with you if he actually coerced them into doing it, but something tells me that every HS athletic team isn’t being coerced to pray for playing time. Like I said, this is up there with qo and cc faux outrage. 

posted by kizer permanente

I can't wait for it lol. Muslim coaches bringing out a prayer rug to midfield and old ladies gasping for air as they faint. 

So, then you would be ok with it?

posted by kizer permanente

the issue is the point i brought up.. you have an authority figure leading prayer. Off season workouts are optional too.. you just don't play if you don't go to them. 

You’re telling me instead of relying on my ability to get a full ride in football, all I had to do was join the team prayer? Smfh.

posted by kizer permanente

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/politics/football-coach-prayer-high-school-supreme-court-kennedy/index.html

Don't worry guys.. the praying is optional. Just like the optional workouts. 

Cute headline by CNN. This is up here with the faux cc and Quaker outrage. If he isn’t forcing players to pray with him, what is the issue?

This happens at public schools all the time for most sports and it’s normally voluntary, if not there would be serious issues. 

  The fact it even made it to the SCOTUS is a joke regardless if he was praising Jesus or Muhammad. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I also ask if posters on here are in favor of the following, because these are all now issues on the table here and being discussed currently in other states. 

Full bans with no exceptions.

Criminal charging abortion providers in state and anyone that helps someone travel out of state.

Banning Plan B.

Banning IUDs 

Banning the use of the drug that is ordered through the mail.

I don't agree with any of these things happening, and based on the average view of abortion I think you will be hard pressed to find many people who agree with any of it.   The problem is, these debates should have started 50 years ago vs legislating from the bench.  My guess in 50 years, laws would have been passed/reversed/amended/etc as society learned more about abortions.  This goes along the lines of what information is available and how the average view of abortion has changed with readily availably facts.  Instead, NOW is when the conversation is just beginning and we all are going to have to go through these growing pains that should have started a long time ago. 

Personally speaking, I think 99% of abortions are morally fucked up.  I understand and I am ok with the reasons being brought up in this thread for emotional appeal (rape, incest, dying, etc), however the reality is that those reasons a barely a blip on the radar for abortions and I believe a lot of people use "women's rights" as a shield for debate. 

Politically speaking, despite a few posters all of a sudden pretending to care about individual liberties, if you want to use a libertarian argument, libertarianism is about self autonomy and property rights + the non aggression principle.  If you actually understand this (most here don't), then you can understand why a libertarian (or someone who holds a lot of libertarian views) would extend these rights to a defenseless life in someone's body.  This is especially true for those that believe life begins at conception.  Most of us believe this is true for every other animal on the planet, but apparently can't grasp this for humans.   With that being said, nobody is ever going to be happy with this debate.  This is why I believe (and hope) every state aligns with Europe and allows abortions in the first trimester.   This is in line with what most people in the US are comfortable with and it's the best compromise. 

Edit: I could be wrong, but I think the votes are there to codify abortions up to the first trimester. Dems have failed to do this in the last 50 years.   I think some Rs would vote in favor of it too. 

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.

posted by Heretic

Way I look at it is that prohibition didn't stop alcohol, the war on drugs was equally worthless and this won't stop abortions. Just gives the underground a chance to make bank.

All of these wars definitely have a recurring theme.

posted by gut

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.

Pretty much comes down to this and the left is very butt hurt that their own playbook has been flipped on them after decades of using it. I don’t agree with using the SCOTUS to push legislation, but it is funny to see it turned on them.

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

posted by ptown_trojans_1

If by that you you it widens the gap, then yeah. This now leads to states enacting more restrictions and outright bans. 

Breaking news: It's more beneficial to live in some states v.s. other states. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

It's bad no doubt. But, it was crickets on here when Trump's notes were way worse.

But, oh we all hate Trump blah blah. 

And before this gets taken out of context. I said, this is a bad look for Biden. I am being consistent as both the look for Biden and Trump on notes are horrible. 

This might be your best "but trump" take since Biden's disastrous presidency began.  

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Well, the leak was 100% right. The decision also contradicts everything about settled law that the conservative justices stated in their confirmation hearings. 

Liberals screamed back in 2016 Roe v. Wade was going away, and they turned out being right. 

Also, Justice Thomas opinion, just being his, but is everything liberals fear, which is a roll back on other protections. 

Now, we have a land where it is have and have not states. It is about to be outlawed after 6 weeks here in Ohio with minimal to no exceptions.

It was like this well before this decision. 

posted by Laley23

That hasn’t been true for decades on a number of rights. Tons of our rights have been “controlled” so to speak.

Sad that something so obviously correct per the constitution is an outlier.

posted by gut

It's an interesting opinion that concealed carry is contributing to unnecessary escalation resulting in death.

That actually does make sense.  But I'd like to see the data on people successfully defending themselves.  I know that data is not very good, for a variety of reasons.  But it seems the news is at least as full of a "good guy with a gun" trying to defend himself and getting killed.  And, certainly, drunken fights escalating to someone pulling a gun is in the news plenty.

Just saying, the data sucks and it's impossible to determine if concealed carry is a net society positive or negative.  IMO, unless you are very highly trained it's a net negative.  And it's only a matter of time before the "good guy with a gun" kills innocents in a cross-fire or thru-and-thru.

I get all the arguments.  What I'm not getting is the data that allows a proper evaluation of those arguments.

The part I don't get is why it matters Even if a right yields a net negative to society, it's still a right.