Disrespect for our institutions. - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15234118
MistyTiger wrote:Why should we respect an institution that wants to control a woman's right to abort/not abort her baby? Some mothers should not give birth at all. I have known some women who had children but are lousy human beings. And I think they are contaminating the minds of their children and those others who are under their influence. Toxicity is a serious matter. There are not enough prison cells for these kinds of toxic women.

And some of the Justices on the SCOTUS should not be on that bench. I can name at least one scumbag on the bench. Blehhh. *coughs*rapist*coughs


You aren't going to lose your abortions and you know it. But there will be limits. No longer are you going to be able to have an abortion to five minutes before a natural birth and demand the tax payer cover it, unless you are in a state you want to be in. The time of you forcing your idiotic and extremist views on everyone will be over. It'll be a state issue and rightfully so. Don't like it? Too bad.
#15234122
BlutoSays wrote:Stop ascribing your views to me.

The Department of Energy produces no energy. The Department of Agriculture produces no food. The Department of Commerce just gets in the way of everything and everyone, causing our competitors like China to run circles around us and lower our standards of living. Most federal departments just churn out mindless rules and regulations all day, because that's the only thing they know how to do. When they've created the final package of regulations to kill any and every enterprise, do you know what they'll do? Start on the next package of regulation, because that's the only thing they know how to do.

The federal bureaucracies, cabinet level departments and welfare bureaus should be cut by 75%. No one would miss HUD and its idiocy. Return important functions to the states. Those that aren't important, kill them off altogether. The federal register is a compendium of 80,000 pages of mind fuckery that is used as a weapon to drive opponents out of business. Where a large company can hire a staff to deal with regulations, a small company cannot. So, they are driven out of business, consolidation takes place and you end up left with Amazon, Cargill and Walmart. That's not by accident. Less choice for the consumer, higher prices and less quality because of less competition thanks to legislation being used as a weapon to drive competitors out of business. All that happens because of Washington DC and its behemoth federal bureaucracies. It's time to take .gov apart and defang it.

Rule of law? WTF? Have you seen our cities lately?

Fuck you and your "democracy". You wouldn't know what democracy is if it bit you. You're simply a DNC parrot.


Make your mind up, pick side. pick a position so flip flopping every single post.
#15234145
In the USA, slavery is one of the institutions that is respected.

13th Amendment wrote:Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


So according to this institution, you can only be enslaved in the USA if you have committed a crime.

Like virtually everyone on Earth has. We are all potential slaves in the USA.

And this was institutionalized.
#15234168
BlutoSays wrote:You aren't going to lose your abortions and you know it. But there will be limits. No longer are you going to be able to have an abortion to five minutes before a natural birth and demand the tax payer cover it, unless you are in a state you want to be in. The time of you forcing your idiotic and extremist views on everyone will be over. It'll be a state issue and rightfully so. Don't like it? Too bad.


How many women ask for last minute abortions? I bet it's not that many. What I disagree with is not allowing for safe abortions for women who are endangering their lives to give birth. How many women lose their lives when they give birth? How many babies die or survive only to be born with defects as a result of pregnancy complications?
#15234194
BlutoSays wrote:You aren't going to lose your abortions and you know it. But there will be limits. No longer are you going to be able to have an abortion to five minutes before a natural birth and demand the tax payer cover it, unless you are in a state you want to be in. The time of you forcing your idiotic and extremist views on everyone will be over. It'll be a state issue and rightfully so. Don't like it? Too bad.


So you WANT more government regulation.
#15234199
BlutoSays wrote:You aren't going to lose your abortions and you know it. But there will be limits. No longer are you going to be able to have an abortion to five minutes before a natural birth and demand the tax payer cover it, unless you are in a state you want to be in. The time of you forcing your idiotic and extremist views on everyone will be over. It'll be a state issue and rightfully so. Don't like it? Too bad.


There's no such thing as "an abortion to [sic] five minutes before a natural birth and demand the tax payer cover it." First, these abortions are already prohibited by law both federally and in nearly every state. See, e.g., Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, 117 Stat. 1201 (2003) (federal ban). Second, federal law prohibits any federally funded program from using funds for abortions. This has been the case since 1980.

Thanks for playing!
#15234255
Torus34 wrote:I've been here in the US for lots more than a few years. I cannot recall an instance in all that time -- more than 1/3 of the time this country has been in existence -- when a document of the Supreme Court of the United States was 'leaked'.

We are becoming a nation in which 'trust' is a pejorative.

You have some terribly wrong ideas about the relationship between the government and its citizens!

Ordinary citizens should NEVER trust the government! They should always demand maximum transparency and demand rigorous evidence from the government that what the government does and or claims is true, is indeed so, objectively.

People should be especially skeptical of institutions and individuals that have a lot of power over people's liberties: judges, prosecutors, cops, the military and the intelligence services - all of them have interests that generally go against the interests of ordinary citizens! And they will abuse their powers if left unaccountable - which is the case right now in the US and many other countries!

Then there's the huge issue of separation of powers!

Judges SHOULD NEVER, EVER (have the ability) create legislation or decide on interpretations when legislation is ambiguous! They have not been elected to create legislation and have no legitimacy to do such a thing! There's an enormous conflict of interest between what a judge wants and what is the best for the ordinary citizen in terms of legislation - the judges will always want more draconian and abusive legislation, and a lack of accountability for them(or others like prosecutors cops and so on)

There are many huge mistakes in most "democratic" countries when it comes to legislation and the judiciary - these mistakes have turned democracies into draconian totalitarian systems(excessive legislation in both quantity, ambiguity and harshness, lack of accountability for cops-prosecutors-judges-military-intel), with the US leading in this terribly wrong direction! (it's the least free democratic country with the largest percentage of people incarcerated or criminally convicted, and one of the least free overall)
#15234261
ccdan wrote:You have some terribly wrong ideas about the relationship between the government and its citizens!

Ordinary citizens should NEVER trust the government! They should always demand maximum transparency and demand rigorous evidence from the government that what the government does and or claims is true, is indeed so, objectively.

People should be especially skeptical of institutions and individuals that have a lot of power over people's liberties: judges, prosecutors, cops, the military and the intelligence services - all of them have interests that generally go against the interests of ordinary citizens! And they will abuse their powers if left unaccountable - which is the case right now in the US and many other countries!

Then there's the huge issue of separation of powers!

Judges SHOULD NEVER, EVER (have the ability) create legislation or decide on interpretations when legislation is ambiguous! They have not been elected to create legislation and have no legitimacy to do such a thing! There's an enormous conflict of interest between what a judge wants and what is the best for the ordinary citizen in terms of legislation - the judges will always want more draconian and abusive legislation, and a lack of accountability for them(or others like prosecutors cops and so on)

There are many huge mistakes in most "democratic" countries when it comes to legislation and the judiciary - these mistakes have turned democracies into draconian totalitarian systems(excessive legislation in both quantity, ambiguity and harshness, lack of accountability for cops-prosecutors-judges-military-intel), with the US leading in this terribly wrong direction! (it's the least free democratic country with the largest percentage of people incarcerated or criminally convicted, and one of the least free overall)


Hi, ccdan.

A judiciary free from political bias is an important part of a democratic government, would you agree?

And, if you agree, how should we view the drive by one of our political parties to install 'conservative' judges?

While I'm at it trust, as I see it, should be awarded to our governmental institutions qua institutions. It should not be extended without reservation to those perched high in their structures.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
#15234804
pugsville wrote:
Make your mind up, pick side. pick a position so flip flopping every single post.



He's a reactionary.

Reactionaries react, there's not much more than that going on.
#15234809
pugsville wrote:So you WANT more government regulation.


I want you to stop gleaning rights in the Constitution that aren't there. That doesn't equate to more regulation.

That equates to not killing another LIFE based on convenience. You don't have the right to do that in the first place, REGARDLESS of SCOTUS stating decades ago in Roe v. Wade 50 years ago that abortion fell under privacy rights.

They don't. It's ridiculous and that idea doesn't exist in reality.
#15234813
BlutoSays wrote:I want you to stop gleaning rights in the Constitution that aren't there. That doesn't equate to more regulation.

That equates to not killing another LIFE based on convenience. You don't have the right to do that in the first place, REGARDLESS of SCOTUS stating decades ago in Roe v. Wade 50 years ago that abortion fell under privacy rights.

They don't. It's ridiculous and that idea doesn't exist in reality.


You want the state to tell women what they can and cannot do , that there should be more regulation and control by the state,

You are arguing for more state power , more state intrusion in people's lives.
#15234820
ccdan wrote:
Judges SHOULD NEVER, EVER (have the ability) create legislation or decide on interpretations when legislation is ambiguous!



Actually, the courts have been doing that from the beginning. The Supreme Court defined it's powers by itself. Because things were changing, common law had to be routinely adapted to fit the changing circumstances.
#15234821
BlutoSays wrote:
I want you to stop gleaning rights in the Constitution that aren't there.


That equates to not killing another LIFE based on convenience.

You don't have the right to do that in the first place, REGARDLESS of SCOTUS stating decades ago in Roe v. Wade 50 years ago that abortion fell under privacy rights.

They don't. It's ridiculous and that idea doesn't exist in reality.



They are called unenumerated rights, and we've been doing that for roughly a century. It's one of the things that defines modern jurisprudence.

You said life, which means you are vegan. Although veggies had to be alive before you brutally killed and ate them...

Your goofiness aside, you are saying a fetus is a baby. It is not, by definition. And the underlying motivation is religion, and the law has to be secular. It's why the Alito draft was so sad and pathetic.

The idea in Rule of Law is to balance competing rights and interests. Back in the real world, that means striking a balance between the rights of women, and the interests of society in matters of procreation.

In stark terms, that means you have to compromise. Failure to do that sets law back over a hundred years.
#15234835
late wrote:They are called unenumerated rights, and we've been doing that for roughly a century. It's one of the things that defines modern jurisprudence.

You said life, which means you are vegan. Although veggies had to be alive before you brutally killed and ate them...

Your goofiness aside, you are saying a fetus is a baby. It is not, by definition. And the underlying motivation is religion, and the law has to be secular. It's why the Alito draft was so sad and pathetic.

The idea in Rule of Law is to balance competing rights and interests. Back in the real world, that means striking a balance between the rights of women, and the interests of society in matters of procreation.

In stark terms, that means you have to compromise. Failure to do that sets law back over a hundred years.


I am saying the fetus is viable at a point. It's not a point at which loudmouths are jumping up and down protesting saying give us everything we want.

The Rule of Law has nothing to do with compromise. It has to do with properly interpreting legislation and not writing it from the bench. Law is not supposed to be written in the judicial branch.

Compromise? Justice is blind. You've seen the icon, sword in one hand and scales in the other. That doesn't mean tipping the scales through bad decisions.

I've seen modern "jurisprudence". It's anything but prudent. It rewards bad behavior and places burdens on those who follow the law caring more for criminals than victims.

Decision making to be returned to the states, as it should be.
#15234845
BlutoSays wrote:
I am saying the fetus is viable at a point. It's not a point at which loudmouths are jumping up and down protesting saying give us everything we want.

The Rule of Law has nothing to do with compromise. It has to do with properly interpreting legislation and not writing it from the bench. Law is not supposed to be written in the judicial branch.

Compromise? Justice is blind. You've seen the icon, sword in one hand and scales in the other. That doesn't mean tipping the scales through bad decisions.

I've seen modern "jurisprudence". It's anything but prudent. It rewards bad behavior and places burdens on those who follow the law caring more for criminals than victims.

Decision making to be returned to the states, as it should be.



Then you are supposedly open to compromise, although you didn't say how many months..

As I said previously, we've been doing that from the beginning when the court delineated it's own powers.

Another vote for going back to the 1800s...

That's actually an interesting thought, not that I agree with it, but it's interesting.
#15234969
late wrote:Then you are supposedly open to compromise, although you didn't say how many months..

As I said previously, we've been doing that from the beginning when the court delineated it's own powers.

Another vote for going back to the 1800s...

That's actually an interesting thought, not that I agree with it, but it's interesting.




I'm open to each state doing it's own thing, since it's closer to its voters and NOT federalizing everything and running it from top-down like lefties love to do.

I mean, if we get rid of the EPA, suddenly, in every progressive's eye, the states actually want dirty water and air and can't handle their own affairs. :roll: Seriously, fuck the fed.gov establishment at this point. They are so out of touch, it isn't funny.

How well have education mandates jammed from the top down by the Department of Edumacation worked? I mean, seriously? We need some federal bureaucrats to run every aspect of our lives from Washington DC? No, I don't think so. Because states want their people to be dumb and uneducated (sarcasm)? It's a ridiculous assumption that the only way forward is by having Washington DC tell us everything. Just fuck that idea right out of the barn. They honestly believe if they don't run it, it's not done correctly. Just look at the results of what the federal govt runs. It's all a complete shit show on auto pilot.

I live thirty miles outside of DC. Go there. See the federal buildings pouring out suits at five o'clock and then ask yourself what they do; it's a jobs program for paper pushers! 70 % of fed.gov could disappear and no one would miss it.

I worked in the federal government as a contractor for 7 years in two different agencies. Trust me, it's a sea of incompetence, decision by committee that never gets decided, massive ass covering and fraud, waste and abuse to the hilt; but with BIG $$$. Do you think anything controlled from DC is going well in the last 60+ years?
#15234973
BlutoSays wrote:
I'm open to each state doing it's own thing, since it's closer to its voters and NOT federalizing everything and running it from top-down like lefties love to do.

I mean, if we get rid of the EPA, suddenly, in every progressive's eye, the states actually want dirty water and air and can't handle their own affairs. :roll: Seriously, fuck the fed.gov establishment at this point. They are so out of touch, it isn't funny.

How well have education mandates jammed from the top down by the Department of Edumacation worked? I mean, seriously? We need some federal bureaucrats to run every aspect of our lives from Washington DC? No, I don't think so. Because states want their people to be dumb and uneducated (sarcasm)? It's a ridiculous assumption that the only way forward is by having Washington DC tell us everything. Just fuck that idea right out of the barn. They honestly believe if they don't run it, it's not done correctly. Just look at the results of what the federal govt runs. It's all a complete shit show on auto pilot.


I worked in the federal government as a contractor for 7 years in two different agencies. Trust me, it's a sea of incompetence, decision by committee that never gets decided, massive ass covering and fraud, waste and abuse to the hilt; but with BIG $$$. Do you think anything controlled from DC is going well in the last 60+ years?



Typically, over 80% of Americans favor abortion. That's not Lefties, that's everybody but the kooks.

Actually, a number of states have let things slide. It's pretty bad.

The real reason we haven't had real education reform is that most Americans don't want it, it's that simple.

One of the big problems is Republicans throwing monkey wrenches into the works. The first step is ending the sabotage.
#15234975
late wrote:Typically, over 80% of Americans favor abortion. That's not Lefties, that's everybody but the kooks.

Actually, a number of states have let things slide. It's pretty bad.

The real reason we haven't had real education reform is that most Americans don't want it, it's that simple.

One of the big problems is Republicans throwing monkey wrenches into the works. The first step is ending the sabotage.


That's a nice headline UNTIL you start breaking it out and asking further questions. What trimester, used as a contraceptive, partial-birth, etc.

But see, you're dishonest. You'll only put that headline number out there of 80%.

As IF abortion is going away tomorrow. You know it isn't.



Frankly, I don't like your "works". I'm all for sabotaging the DNC.

And, oh by the way, democrats put forth (proposing and working on) a bill last month that was far more radical that Roe.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rest ... e-than-roe

Leftists just had to take it to the next level.

100% AGREE, Great interview with an intelligent an[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Yeah, bloody Russian propaganda. Let us, the NATO[…]

I included *my own* model for a post-capitalist[…]