• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Justice Barrett

JoeMorgue said:
Well yeah because Little Miss Handmaiden isn't going to be fighting to take your rights away, so why should it bother you?
Click to expand...

Abortion isn't the #1 concern for most women either. Hell, it's not even the #1 concern for most Democrat women. Is it your #1 concern?
 
theprestige said:
Why is their sexist cult so totally okay with letting a female member seek and achieve positions of high power and authority in society? Independent power and authority, no less. Shouldn't it be Mister Barrett getting confirmed, while Mrs. Barrett stays home, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, if this cult is all you say it is?

Or are we expanding the theory to include some sort of Russian mole/Yuri/Red Sparrow type shenanigans? This handmaiden was selected decades ago to go to law school, pursue a career as an emancipated woman in society, and rise to the highest levels of authority and power in our judicial system... all as a sleeper agent for the Right to Life cabal?
Click to expand...

you are making strawman after strawman here.


Why don't you learn about her cult?

Getting members they have power over into positions of power is SOP for cults.

It issue is not about her having authority outside the Cult or her household, it is about her being subjugate to her church leaders and husband within the Cult.
Which is a massive red flag for a post designed to let the occupant be completely independent.
 
Handmaid? I thought she was more of a Serena Joy character myself, a woman who wields power whilst holding to an ideology that is oppressive to women.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's interesting that you mention the ACA, yet don't actually notice what happened. Republicans, even when they had the majority in both houses and the presidency, failed to repeal the ACA. Yet you think they can pass a federal ban on abortion.

Not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Again, a superficial comparator that at a casual glance might seem apt. But...

The ACA repeal pretty much requires the considerable follow on action of cooking up a replacement. It was after all, "Repeal and replace!" Without a replacement worked out, it would be a bit of a shot in the foot to only do the repeal part.

Rolling back abortion rights is the end game, with no potential for embarrassment at a lack of subsequent action.
 
Ziggurat said:
I have no idea what you claim is your position on any of those issues.

But the fact that you have posted repeatedly in support of Stubby McBonespurs and his actions (which threaten to reverse LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, and marijuana legalization) means that at best you are indifferent to those issues, at worst you actually want to see gay rights rolled back, abortion eliminated, and marijuana kept illegal.
Click to expand...
Trump was in favor of gay marriage before Obama was.
Click to expand...
It is irrelevant what Trump thought of gay marriage prior to his republican run for presidency. What matters are his actual policies now that he is president.

Since he ran in 2016 (and became president) he has: restricted trans people from the military, rolled back obama-era laws against discrimination of LGBTQ people, and allowed the labor department to change the rules allowing contractors to fire people due to their sexual orientation.

See: HRC

This is of course in addition to appointing right-wing judges who are more likely to rule against various elements of gay rights.
I've seen no effort on his part to scale back marijuana legalization efforts, or Obama's part to advance those efforts.
Click to expand...
From: Wikipedia
Although Trump indicated during his 2016 presidential campaign that he favored leaving the issue of legalization of marijuana to the states, his administration subsequently upheld the federal prohibition of cannabis, and Trump's 2021 fiscal budget proposal proposed removing protections for state medical marijuana laws...On January 4, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded three Obama-era memos that had adopted a policy of non-interference with states that have legalized recreational marijuana...

So while Obama didn't legalize marijuana on a federal level, he had a more hands-off approach to the states to set their own rules. The Trump administration has gone the opposite way, trying to reverse the trend and establish more restrictions on a federal level.
Abortion is the only issue of those where he's pushed a conservative agenda, and pardon me if I don't **** a brick on that account. I'm not indifferent, but 1) it's really not my #1 concern, and 2) unlike so many here, I recognize that it's not actually a black and white issue
Click to expand...
Actually it is a black and white issue.... one side wants women to have control over their bodies, the other side wants the state to force women to carry a child to term, largely because some invisible sky daddy told them to.

And if its not your number 1 concern, fine... but don't somehow claim "abortion rights are safe even with people like Drunky McRapeface and the Stepford Wife on the supreme court". Instead, admit that abortion rights are at risk, and that you don't care.
 
Ziggurat said:
Trump was in favor of gay marriage before Obama was. I've seen no effort on his part to scale back marijuana legalization efforts, or Obama's part to advance those efforts. Abortion is the only issue of those where he's pushed a conservative agenda, and pardon me if I don't **** a brick on that account. I'm not indifferent, but 1) it's really not my #1 concern, and 2) unlike so many here, I recognize that it's not actually a black and white issue, and I'm not offended by people being either for or against abortion. If abortion is your all-encompassing concern, I suggest that maybe you need to reassess your life.
Click to expand...

How sweetly naive of you to think that Trump alone is the arbiter on all policy. His very flip-flopping is ample evidence of his transactional approach to everything. He's an endured tool of the Right. His only concerns are his ego and money. He'll push whatever his base and Fox want him to, so long as his very direct and immediate needs are met.
 
Ziggurat said:
Well yeah because Little Miss Handmaiden isn't going to be fighting to take your rights away, so why should it bother you?
Click to expand...
Abortion isn't the #1 concern for most women either. Hell, it's not even the #1 concern for most Democrat women. Is it your #1 concern?
Click to expand...
What a dumb argument.

Even if it isn't most people's #1 concern, it doesn't justify the removal of personal rights.

And for the small number of people who do need an abortion, for whom a pregnancy would cause significant hardship in their lives, then abortion is certainly their #1 concern.
 
Ziggurat said:
Abortion isn't the #1 concern for most women either. Hell, it's not even the #1 concern for most Democrat women. Is it your #1 concern?
Click to expand...

It is often the no. 1 concern of opponents of abortion rights, just as "no gun laws" is the no. 1 concern of opponents of rational gun control. That's why their political impact is disproportionate to their numbers.
 
Ziggurat said:
There are plenty of issues where republican politicians side with the minority when it comes to certain issues... The republican tax cuts for millionaires, marijuana legalization, the Affordable Care Act. Yet republican congress-critters support those even though it is (in theory) harmful to their re-election chances. They do so because they think its not important enough to swing voters, and/or they think they can fool people.

I see no reason why a future right-wing republican president (with a solid republican senate and house majority) won't be similarly emboldened, with the knowledge that congress will fall lock-step behind him (as they have done with Stubby McBonespurs and Moscow Mitch over the past 4 years).
Click to expand...
It's interesting that you mention the ACA, yet don't actually notice what happened. Republicans, even when they had the majority in both houses and the presidency, failed to repeal the ACA.
Click to expand...
I am quite aware of what happened...
- Republicans in the house voted overwhelmingly in favor of the republican's health care plan
- Almost all senators voted in favor of the health care plan.... and one of the only republican senators who voted against it is no longer there. Bragging about how abortion won't be banned federally because one senator made the difference on health care seems rather foolish
- Despite the failure of the republican health care plan, they have continued to attack the Affordable Care act... For example, their Tax Cuts for Millionaires act (which, by the way, was passed by overwhelming support from both the house and the senate republicans) had provisions that affected the ACA. Imagine that.... republicans voting in lock step to approve a tax bill that was not only unpopular because, well, you know.... tax cuts for millionaires and all, but it also attacked the ACA. So I guess republicans are willing to attack a popular program after all.
Yet you think they can pass a federal ban on abortion.
Click to expand...
Your whole argument seems to be based on "one senator made the difference in ACA so obviously abortion rights are safe"... Not exactly a resounding rejection of the program though.

And of course you ignored the fact that republicans voted resoundingly in favor of tax cuts for millionaires (even though it too attacked the ACA). And they voted resoundingly in favor of Trump's cabinet members (even though some of them were... questionable). And they voted resoundingly against Trump's impeachment. (But I did hear senator Collins had a very concerned look on her face). And they voted resoundingly to confirm Drunky McRapeface and the Stepford Wife to the supreme court.

Oh, and by the way, as I have mentioned before... the risk is not just an attempt to implement a total ban, but that a future republican president/congress will attempt to implement restrictions that fall short of a total ban, but make access to abortion near impossible (while still "technically" legal).
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
What a dumb argument.

Even if it isn't most people's #1 concern, it doesn't justify the removal of personal rights.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say that to justify outlawing abortion. I said that to point out that I’m not exactly alone in not making it my number 1 priority. Is it your number 1 priority?
 
Lurch said:
How sweetly naive of you to think that Trump alone is the arbiter on all policy.
Click to expand...

That’s a non sequitor. The accusation was specifically in regards to Trump, not policy in general, so Trump’s positions on those topics is rather on point.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
First case for Amy Covid Barrett is a doozy:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...gay-discrimination-laws-philadelphia-n1245822

It's about the refusal of Catholic adoption agencies to place children in same-sex homes.

Let's see how independent of her faith she really is.
Click to expand...


From the link:
Whatever the charity's rights when it is regulated by the government, Katyal said, "it is not entitled to perform services for the government however it sees fit."

They city also said the charity is not being punished for its religious views, noting that it still has city contracts, worth millions of dollars a year, to perform other services for children in foster care.
Click to expand...


I don't understand why the city didn't just cancel its contracts. You can believe whatever you want, but you can't make somebody else pay you for it.
 
theprestige said:
I can think of several good reasons why they might not want to just cancel their contracts.
Click to expand...

Sure, starting with the necessity to find an alternate provider. But if you're hiring somebody to do a job your way, and they say "We're special. We'll only do it our way," in violation of all kinds of anti-discrimination laws and policies, you can't let it slide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom