Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Sand said:

Indignation doesn't supplant truth.  If you take out obvious (and fairly rare) exceptions the vast majority of unplanned pregnancies are "whoopses".  In this day and age there are birth control methods that are damn near 100% effective.

Let's say for the sake of argument that they're 99.9% effective (the pill generally is, but condoms aren't.)

How many times do you think people (total, among the entire population) have sex every year?

Are you aware that over 50% of women getting abortions report having used birth control for the month they got pregnant?  That 13% report being on the pill at the time they got pregnant?

38 million women use contraception every month.  Let's say they have sex 4 times per month.  That's 152,000 failures per month just of oral contraception

How do you feel about every straight woman who is still capable of carrying a child who doesn’t want a baby, regardless of whether or not she’s on birth control, telling men they need to limit sex to less than 4 times per month because of these statistics?

Edited by Henry Ford
Edited to add the final paragraph and really looking forward to the inevitable responses motivated by pure misogyny.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Qanon said:

Check the Qanon thread.

It is not a falsehood, in my opinion and 10's of millions of other Americans

I have...you are posting falsehoods in multiple places. Not very excellent of you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

That is tied with some racist rant RBM had a while ago as the worst thing I've seen on this message board. I thought you just said dumb things about science, and I'm used to hearing stuff like that, but I didn't realize you were devoid of humanity as well. You deserve some "help" after saying something like that.

There is nothing more offensive than the wholesale killing of children.  

That is devoid of humanity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Let's say for the sake of argument that they're 99.9% effective (the pill generally is, but condoms aren't.)

How many times do you think people (total, among the entire population) have sex every year?

Are you aware that over 50% of women getting abortions report having used birth control for the month they got pregnant?  That 13% report being on the pill at the time they got pregnant?

38 million women use contraception every month.  Let's say they have sex 4 times per month.  That's 152,000 failures per month just of oral contraception

Add to that state and federal governments that are actively making it more difficult for these women to get contraception and instituting educational programs aimed at young people that discourage their use and spread misinformation.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sand said:

There is nothing more offensive than the wholesale killing of children.  

That is devoid of humanity.

What about not feeding, caring, or educating them? I always find it odd that the right is so hell bent on society forcing a pregnancy to term but so unwilling to support said child once born.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Sand said:

There is nothing more offensive than the wholesale killing of children.  

That is devoid of humanity.

I have asked this question many times before but have never got an answer

If it is killing to have an abortion, shouldn't the mother be charged with 1st degree murder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badmojo1006 said:

I have asked this question many times before but have never got an answer

If it is killing to have an abortion, shouldn't the mother be charged with 1st degree murder?

Every handmaiden is given a stone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sand said:

There is nothing more offensive than the wholesale killing of children.  

That is devoid of humanity.

Perhaps this is the part where we look to the scientific community to give us a definition of what a child is and see what stage a fetus fits that definition. 

92% of all abortions occur before 13 weeks.  That’s almost entirely not even fetal stage. It’s embryonic (until week 11/12.) And more often than not the remaining 8% say if they had safe, affordable options they would have had the abortion during that time.  

So since you believe that the number of women on the pill who have an abortion (13%) is rare what would you call an abortion beyond the embryo stage?

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

Let's say for the sake of argument that they're 99.9% effective (the pill generally is, but condoms aren't.)

How many times do you think people (total, among the entire population) have sex every year?

Are you aware that over 50% of women getting abortions report having used birth control for the month they got pregnant?  That 13% report being on the pill at the time they got pregnant?

38 million women use contraception every month.  Let's say they have sex 4 times per month.  That's 152,000 failures per month just of oral contraception

Then they were obviously miracles of God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Perhaps this is the part where we look to the scientific community to give us a definition of what a child is and see what stage a fetus fits that definition. 

92% of all abortions occur before 13 weeks.  That’s almost entirely not even fetal stage. It’s embryonic (until week 11/12.) And more often than not the remaining 8% say if they had safe, affordable options they would have had the abortion during that time.  

So since you believe that the number of women on the pill who have an abortion (13%) is rare what would you call an abortion beyond the embryo stage?

Ooh, Henry's going to try using reason and science on a pro-lifer who has already demonstrated a tenuous grasp of both.   

:popcorn:

We haven't seen something like this since Smoo argued with Larryboy about dragons.

Edited by -fish-
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, -fish- said:

Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate from 28% to 39.5%.  

 

No choice, jailing black people was expensive.

Edited by BassNBrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sand said:

Tim is 100% correct.

Never thought I'd see those words together in that order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

 

6 hours ago, Sand said:

Indignation doesn't supplant truth.  If you take out obvious (and fairly rare) exceptions the vast majority of unplanned pregnancies are "whoopses".  In this day and age there are birth control methods that are damn near 100% effective.

Let's say for the sake of argument that they're 99.9% effective (the pill generally is, but condoms aren't.)

How many times do you think people (total, among the entire population) have sex every year?

Are you aware that over 50% of women getting abortions report having used birth control for the month they got pregnant?  That 13% report being on the pill at the time they got pregnant?

38 million women use contraception every month.  Let's say they have sex 4 times per month.  That's 152,000 failures per month just of oral contraception

 

Not to mention many forms of birth control aren't healthy.  Personally I'd rather pull the plug on a fetus or two than end up with cancer.  Then again, I'm a dude so my opinion doesn't matter that much.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

 

4 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

Never thought I'd see those words together in that order.

And from Sand no less! :excited:

 

I think you're likely right if it's any consolation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kavanaugh looks like he has a few skeletons in his closet.  

It doesn’t matter.  The confirmation  hearing is purely for show.  US is officially headed backwards for the foreseeable future.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Kavanaugh looks like he has a few skeletons in his closet.  

It doesn’t matter.  The confirmation  hearing is purely for show.  US is officially headed backwards for the foreseeable future.  

And it needs to continue until the DCCC gets their collective heads out of their ###es

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Kavanaugh looks like he has a few skeletons in his closet.  

It doesn’t matter.  The confirmation  hearing is purely for show.  US is officially headed backwards for the foreseeable future.  

Following the passage of the Civil Rights Act, one of the more racist overarching strategies in modern history was put in motion by the Republican Party and Nixon took over as President.

Things moved pretty quickly the last eight years in areas lots of people don’t want freedoms to be allowed to go.  This isn’t unprecedented. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sand said:

If you're having an abortion the chances that you were irresponsible with your uterus is pretty high.

Dude

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Qanon said:

Do you guys finally agree that Kavanaugh will be sitting on the Supreme Court in October?

 

Will he or should he, two very different questions.  It’s a virtual certainty he will, Dems really can’t stop it.  Should he, now that’s worthy of debate. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dkp993 said:

Should he, now that’s worthy of debate. 

He is as qualified as any who are currently in the court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sand said:

He is as qualified as any who are currently in the court.

When a potential SC justice is caught lying under oath and still gets confirmed to the court, thats the day laws become a joke.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sand said:

He is as qualified as any who are currently in the court.

Qualified yes...do you believe he lied under oath?

I asked @Qanon the other day and he never answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sand said:

He is as qualified as any who are currently in the court.

And some who aren’t.  Like Merrick Garland. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

Qualified yes...do you believe he lied under oath?

I asked @Qanon the other day and he never answered.

What we know is more important than what we think we know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnnyU said:

What we know is more important than what we think we know. 

Is that supposed to be an answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, proninja said:

I dunno, Garland is the chief judge of that circuit

He should be on the Supreme Court, was my point.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, proninja said:

I was agreeing with you and suggesting that Garland isn't as qualified, he's more qualified

It is just so ridiculous what the GOP did.  I honestly can’t believe it.  Then they have the gall to call out Dems for being partisan through this process.  American politics is the twilight zone.  Probably the worst and most disfunctional of any liberal democracy.   

Edited by zoonation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, zoonation said:

It is just so ridiculous what the GOP did.  I honestly can’t believe it.  Then they have the gall to call out Dems for being partisan through this process.  American politics is the twilight zone.  Probably the worst and most disfunctional of any liberal democracy.   

They are not dysfunctional they are bought.  Big difference.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, proninja said:

I was agreeing with you and suggesting that Garland isn't as qualified, he's more qualified

Waiting for my lucky numbers so I can win the lottery and move to one of those ####hole countries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 11:08 AM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

And it’s not their job to land blows any more than it is the Republicans’ to deflect them.  Their job is to vett his experience, explore his character and ethics, and examine his judicial views, and they’ve been doing that.

Well, about 10% of it.  90% of his career is being hidden from us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dkp993 said:

Will he or should he, two very different questions.  It’s a virtual certainty he will, Dems really can’t stop it.  Should he, now that’s worthy of debate. 

A guy who thinks that contraception is abortion is way too extreme to be sitting on the Supreme Court.  But yes, he'll probably get there - until Trump is impeached and, if found guilty of treason, the Dems push to annul everything he did while in office.  Illegitimate POTUS = 2 illegitimate SCOTUS appointees.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CowboysFromHell said:

A guy who thinks that contraception is abortion is way too extreme to be sitting on the Supreme Court.  But yes, he'll probably get there - until Trump is impeached and, if found guilty of treason, the Dems push to annul everything he did while in office.  Illegitimate POTUS = 2 illegitimate SCOTUS appointees.

That simply isn't going to happen.  First, there isn't crap on Trump as in the way of proof and there probably won't be.  Second, even if he was removed from office his SCOTUS appontees wouldn't be removed as well.  That I do know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Qualified yes...do you believe he lied under oath?

I asked @Qanon the other day and he never answered.

Haven't paid a huge amount of attention to that - pretty inside baseball.  Even Vox, which is super left wing, says no on perjury there.  If they say that on that side of the political spectrum that's good enough for me.

 

1 hour ago, zoonation said:

And some who aren’t.  Like Merrick Garland. 

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impeaching Gorsuch will be a thing at some point IMO.  Either it's an illegitimately held seat (in which case Impeachment is the just thing to do), or who sits on the Supreme Court is about pure political power and anything goes if you've got the votes to make it happen (in which case Impeachment is justified through having the political power to do it).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Impeaching Gorsuch will be a thing at some point IMO.  Either it's an illegitimately held seat (in which case Impeachment is the just thing to do), or who sits on the Supreme Court is about pure political power and anything goes if you've got the votes to make it happen (in which case Impeachment is justified through having the political power to do it).

On what grounds?  I haven't read anything in your post that constitutes legal grounds to remove Gorsuch.

Edited by JohnnyU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JohnnyU said:

On what grounds?

Either it's an illegitimately held seat (in which case Impeachment is the just thing to do), or who sits on the Supreme Court is about pure political power and anything goes if you've got the votes to make it happen (in which case Impeachment is justified through having the political power to do it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Either it's an illegitimately held seat (in which case Impeachment is the just thing to do), or who sits on the Supreme Court is about pure political power and anything goes if you've got the votes to make it happen (in which case Impeachment is justified through having the political power to do it).

...and my response to that is there is nothing in that statement that would remove a SCOTUS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it is.  Gorsuch was put on the Bench by either a) an illegitimate blocking of Obama's appointment, or b) through the legitimate exercise of pure political power.

If it's a) Dems are ethically/morally justified in removing him.  If it's b) then removing him is justified at whatever point they have the pure political power to do it.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Either it's an illegitimately held seat (in which case Impeachment is the just thing to do), or who sits on the Supreme Court is about pure political power and anything goes if you've got the votes to make it happen (in which case Impeachment is justified through having the political power to do it).

The seat is legitimately held, and pure politics, I hope, will never include 2/3 of the Senate doing things so constitutionally offensive that any sane electorate would vote them out at the soonest possible opportunity. (Half of the House is more realistic, but impeachment doesn't matter so much without any possibility of removal.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The seat is legitimately held, and pure politics, I hope, will never include 2/3 of the Senate doing things so constitutionally offensive that any sane electorate would vote them out at the soonest possible opportunity. (Half of the House is more realistic, but impeachment doesn't matter so much without any possibility of removal.)

How is removing him more Constitutionally offensive than the means by which he was appointed?

I don't recall any Republicans being voted out.

 

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dkp993 said:

Will he or should he, two very different questions.  It’s a virtual certainty he will, Dems really can’t stop it.  Should he, now that’s worthy of debate. 

I only asked one question, the only question that really matters. 

Glad at least you agree he will be. :thumbup:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gorsuch was appointed exactly how he was supposed to be appointed: the President nominated him and the Senate confirmed him. There was nothing at all wrong with that.

(The Merrick Garland thing was a fiasco, but it is constitutionally separate from Gorsuch's perfectly valid appointment, and anyway it didn't involve 2/3 of the Senate.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Qanon said:
9 hours ago, dkp993 said:

Will he or should he, two very different questions.  It’s a virtual certainty he will, Dems really can’t stop it.  Should he, now that’s worthy of debate. 

I only asked one question, the only question that really matters. 

"Should" questions don't matter to you at all?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:
9 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The seat is legitimately held, and pure politics, I hope, will never include 2/3 of the Senate doing things so constitutionally offensive that any sane electorate would vote them out at the soonest possible opportunity.

I don't recall any Republicans being voted out.

I don't recall the electorate being sane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Qanon said:

I only asked one question, the only question that really matters. 

Glad at least you agree he will be. :thumbup:

 

And the next question you should ask is, will the sun will rise tomorrow.  Asking questions with only one answer isn’t intellectually honest and not something you should feel proud we agree on.  And before you ask yes the sun will rise tomorrow.  Glad we agree on something else ?.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Gorsuch was appointed exactly how he was supposed to be appointed: the President nominated him and the Senate confirmed him. There was nothing at all wrong with that.

(The Merrick Garland thing was a fiasco, but it is constitutionally separate from Gorsuch's perfectly valid appointment, and anyway it didn't involve 2/3 of the Senate.)

This strikes me as a distinction without a difference -- one can't happen without the other.  For me removing Gorsuch would be no worse than blocking Garland.  So I think we'll have to agree to disagree. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

For me removing Gorsuch would be no worse than blocking Garland.

First, I didn't claim that removing Gorsuch would be worse than blocking Garland. I claimed that removing Gorsuch would be worse than appointing Gorsuch, and I explained why those things are different.

Second, is "no worse than blocking Garland" the appropriate standard by which to judge all political conduct? If so, I think you and I both must retract most of our criticisms of President Trump. He's generally been a very good President inasmuch as the great majority of his presidential actions have been no worse than blocking Garland. :thumbup:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am concerned none of Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer should be on the court. Means absolutely nothing because they are.

Did you hear that  Ruth Bader Ginsburg responded to Cory Booker. She said "I knew Spartacus and you Mr. Booker are no Spartacus". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.