The american constitution democracy loving dems are all for it until they don't get their way. I expect we'll be seeing lots and lots of this. Is this "Insurection"?
"Protesters threatened to break the AZ Senate entryway glass," Republican Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers tweeted, as members were in the middle of voting on a series of bills.
The situation escalated into a "hostage" situation as lawmakers were instructed not to exit the building, Republican Arizona State Senator Kelly Townsend said.
its been official for quite a while now. 2 complete systems of justice lives in this country. 1 for conservatives and none for libs. They just scream "racism" and do whatever the hell they want. Its right out in the open, not a souls will do thing about. Ya know there is a map of how to change the constitution if the dems would only read the damn thing. There is no need for any fake riots. If they had the votes in enough states this would all be settled, but no riots, burning, looting, murder is the ne way.
It does seem to be broken doesn't it....
Tim,
I greatly appreciate the WONDERFUL contributions but in order to maximize their ability to result in conversations, if they are all about the same topic, then they should all be in the same thread vs starting a new thread every time(to create new headlines/threads) and not putting them in the same thread, where all the comments and thoughts can be drawn to and not one comment at one thread.........that could go to any of the 3 or 4 threads and somebody else making a great comment that goes on another thread and they never connect with each other.
Since mcfarm picked this one to comment on, we should use this as the main thread.
It's perfectly fine to make numerous consecutive posts in the same thread without others commenting. It may feel odd, as if you're talking to yourself but the vast majority of people here are lurkers/readers and do NOT respond back.
Previous new threads on the same thing this morning.
Over turning Roe v Wade was the right thing to do
0 responses |
Started by TimNew - June 25, 2022, 8:21 a.m.
Setting the moral and ethical debate aside, and going on a stricly constitutional basis, there was no justfification for the SCOTUS ruling on Roe v Wade in 73. As I've mentioned before, even RBG thought it was a bad ruling in spite of her Pro-Life stance. There is no provision in the constitution to support it and the 10th clearly makes it a state issue.
But, there is no doubt in my mind that this will have an impact on the mid terms this year. It will have no real impact on the republican base, who largely supprt the recent ruling, or the dem base, who no doubt oppose it. The independents OTOH, who essentially decide elections? That's the wild card. How many will change their minds?
I guess it comes down to how many value the "right" to abortion over economics, border security, etc.
I suspect that it will not be a significant portion, but we'll know more in November.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
New England Journal of Medicine, Orwelian Dystopia post Roe.
0 responses |
Started by TimNew - June 24, 2022, 8:33 p.m.
A little background.
In my early college days, I was studying to be a psychologist. Any of you who read what I write already know I would have been a terrible psychologist. I believe we are responsible for who and what we are, and that flies in the face of what I learned in those early days. As I approached my degree requirements, I become less and less enamored with my chosen field.. But... I learned how to use computers while doing statistical analysis and became fascinated with them. The rest, so to speak, is history.
Anyway, in those days, while learning psychology, you had to learn some basic physiology.. medicine, how the human body works. I wrote an amazing paper on split brain surgery. The Corpus Callosum is the nerve center that connects the right and left hemisphere of the brain and in the early 70's it showed real promise in the treatment of epilepsy. Maybe it still does, but as I said, I moved to computers which are a different type of nervous systems altogether. (TIC)
In those days, the BIBLE was the New England Journal of Medicine. I referenced volume and chapter in the very best work I did. My professors were amazed. I can brag now because I am no where near that field. Maybe I'll brag about what I've done with computers in another post.
But anyway..
The NEJM was totally apolitical back then. Politics had nothing to do with medicine. The MD's I knew were very conservative, for the most part , but they would NEVER allow politics to enter their professional writing.
Now, we have that "distinguished" (should I say formerly?) journal writing an article calling a constitutional ruling a means to an Orwellian Dystopian society? How can returning the decision on abortion to the states, as the 10th ammendment clearly intends, lead anyone to draw such a conclusion? What has happened? That article is purely politcal and not at all based on science.
Perhaps the indoctrination centers we call universities that used to be centers of free thinking and speech are really taking the toll about which "right wingnuts" have been warning for the last decade or so.
This article is NOT the result of unbiased scientific thought.
I am simply shocked.
+++++++++++++++++++
Previous thread:
YES!! NO MORE ROE VS WADE!!!
17 responses |
Started by 12345 - June 24, 2022, 10:45 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86230/
The other thing too is that one of the threads emerges as main thread and the one posters comment on the others get buried and forgotten.
I often go back in our archives to retrieve previous thoughts/discussions and a thread with 1 post will usually be ignored.
Personally, I think libs once again rioting when they don't get their way and the New England Journal of Medecine becoming a blatanlty biased political publication and the political implications of Roe on the midterms are completely different subjects.
But of course, it's your call.
Thanks Tim!
Actually, it's 100% YOUR call and I'm just trying to make things better FOR YOU and MarketForum.
Gunter liked to do the same thing to create the most headlines that he could about the same topic.
You'll note that I didn't delete the other posts/threads. Posters can post at those threads if they want and ignore what works best.......no rule against that.
YOUR choice and we really do greatly appreciate the contributions this morning.
In fact, you'll note the DOUBLE coverage of them. Not just on the 1st thread with 0 comments but also on this thread too.
Just trying to MAXIMIZE the coverage for you and Marketforum.
Latest news (much of it disagrees with my personal opinion but here it is):
Other articles from this source:
metmike: I see the media as usual is ecstatic over the opportunities to stoke flames/add fuel to the fire with sensationalized/attention grabbing headlines intended to attract more readers/viewers like flies to poop.
who here knows the real story about Miss Roe? Its not pretty but dems never cared about the truth they had a narrative to push and did so for more than 40 years
MIKE... PERSONALLY, I WOULD MUCH RATHER READ 3 THREADS CONCERNING MOST OF THE SAME SUBJECT, THAN ONE LONNNNNNNNNG, HUGE ONE. (I NORMALLY SKIP THE LONNNNNNNNNNNG ONES, BECAUSE MY MIND NEEDS TO SWITCH MODES TOO FAST/OFTEN, WHEN THE BASIC SUBJECT GET'S OFF KILTER.)
MIND'S WEREN'T MADE TO MULTI-TASK, IMO. I BELIEVE THAT'S A BIG PART OF MOM'S GETTING DEMENTIA MORE OFTEN THAN DAD'S. COOK, CLEAN HOUSE, WATCH THE KIDS, ETC., NOT MUCH TIME LEFT FOR A QUIET MIND,
JUST SAYIN'.
I heard an argument from an hysterical leftist that just blew my mind. It perfectly quantified their profound lack of understanding of issues, the constitution and the SCOTUS.
Essentially they said.. The supreme court is all for states rights when it comes to abortion, but not when it comes to guns.. In reference to the court overturing New York's totally meta-constitutional gun carry laws.
Should I really need to explain that there is actually an amendment that gives the federal government jusirdiction over weapons? It's that pesky 2nd amendment.
But the amendment most applicable to abortion is the 10th which states.. All duties and rights not enumerated in this document are relegated to the states or the individual. Abortion falls clearly and entirely into this category.
People who do not understand this basic concept have no business taking part in the debate.
as for the people taking part in the debate....I feel the people on the left voting to confirm SC justices have no business with that vote. Very dangerous for someone who has rarely looked at the document to then be allowed to vote on those who have the final say about such matters.
"I heard an argument from an hysterical leftist that just blew my mind. It perfectly quantified their profound lack of understanding of issues, the constitution and the SCOTUS."
Thanks Tim!
So people on the right are the ones with a firm grip on understanding the Constitution and reality?
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85999/#86007
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85500/#85590
People are extremely gullible because their overwhelming desire to believe in things that line up with their political ideology is greater than their desire to fact check the things that line up with what they want to believe!
This weakness well known by some people, especially gatekeepers of messages, that manufacture realities and false narratives that are repeated over and over and spread by like minded sources to capture the minds of those that want to believe in it.
I think there are a lot of people on both the right and the left who do not have a firm grip on the constitution. They just seem to be far more prevalent on the left. That makes sense since at leat 90% of the left's agenda is meta-constitutional.
I think the points I made above as to the totally flawed argument of constitutional application re: abortion vs gun rights is very sound. Further, as the SCOTUS is compelled to rule based on the constitution, that argument is further flawed.
Do you disagree? I'd be happy to hear your argument.
I totally agree but the original statement, described it as a leftist flaw.