Tuesday, May 3, 2022

Christo-Sharia Law

 


The rank hypocrisy on the Right has blossomed into an amazing thing to behold.

Women who rightly demanded, “My body, my choice”, are now suppressed by the same anti-mask authoritarians who proclaim, “My body, my choice”.

They don’t see the hypocrisy, of course, just as they also don’t see racism and inequality.

Lately their moral panic and hobgoblins have been more about their “not-racism” towards Blacks, demonizing BLM, CRT and any other progressive notions about race and inequality. They love to tell us they, “don’t see color”.

Right. Racism isn’t racism to racists. Count on it.

It wasn’t that long ago when anti-Muslim bigots and other conservative racists howled about “Sharia Law” coming to the US.

We can’t have religion interfering with our laws, can we? Well, make that non-Christian religions.

After all, these hypocrites will say, “America is a Christian nation, derived from Biblical law by our founders”.

It’s all bullshit, as any sane and informed person knows.

But we can’t forget the other inequality embraced by the Right that has never gone away. With the help of one conservative Catholic woman, conservative Catholic Supreme Court Justices are denying women’s reproductive rights.

The long struggle for equal civil rights has taught us there is no equal justice under law when the law’s impact is tilted against one race.

The long struggle for women’s rights has taught us there is no equal justice under law when the law’s impact is tilted against one gender.

The Right has ALWAYS opposed any progress in racial and gender rights. And they have always complained about not having the power to legally suppress the rights of others.

This is what makes me yearn for the days when the Right complained about “judicial activism” and “legislating from the bench”.

That was never their problem was it? They have ALWAYS wanted their own judicial activism and legislating from the bench.

With a conservative Catholic majority on the Supreme Court, it was only a matter of time before they tore down the wall between church and state.

Let’s remember theocracy and fascism are both inherently built on inequality.

On October 10, 1936 Heinrich Himmler created the Reich Central Office for Combating Homosexuality and Abortion, or Special Office (II S), a sub-department of Executive Department II of the Gestapo.

What’s the difference between the “Master race” and the “Master Gender”, when it comes down to the rights of minorities and women?

Neither of these authoritarian mindsets have a high opinion of equality and democracy.

And let’s not give in to their Big Lie about being “pro-life”. They DON’T CARE about the woman’s health, or the child’s well-being after birth. The love their AR-15s more than the terrorized kids in schools. They pass laws protecting weapons manufacturers, but do nothing about school shootings.

They will refuse to consider guaranteed healthcare for them when they get sick or injured. They will still continue their war on public education and public healthcare that would improve or save their lives.

At their core they are indifferent or even hostile to our Constitutional general welfare. No empathy flows in their cold-blooded veins. No light of compassion shines into their closed minds. No mercy emanates from their hardened hearts.

Dr. Graham Walker tweeted, "Just so we're clear: the pregnancy that ends up in the wrong spot, like the fallopian tube? The one that will NEVER turn into a baby and will rupture and kill your wife, daughter, or sister? Terminating that fetus is also an abortion, and they want to ban those, too.” 

The most recent official data available on the incidence of ectopic pregnancies in the United States is from 1992, when the rate was estimated to be 19.7 per 1000 pregnancies, which represents an estimated incidence of 108,800 pregnancies per year. – Science Direct

Republicans now want to sentence over 100,000 women to death per year.

They really don’t give a damn about the woman or the child, just as they don’t give a damn about racial injustice. They prove it every day. 

If this highly partisan activist Right-wing Supreme Court won't convince more people to vote out the Republican authoritarians on the Right, equal rights, equal justice under law, fair elections, proportional representation, and our entire democratic republic are doomed.

76 comments:

PeterHenderson1 said...

Joe Biden entered the senate in 1973, the same year the Supreme Court legalized abortion in its Roe v. Wade decision.

1974: A year after Roe v. Wade was decided, he said the ruling had gone “too far” and that a woman seeking an abortion should not have the “sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

1976: He votes for the “Hyde Amendment” which bans federal funding of abortions.

1981: He introduces the “Biden Amendment” which prohibits foreign-aid funding of biomedical research involving abortion.

1982: He votes for a constitutional amendment allowing states to overturn Roe v. Wade.

1983: He votes against a constitutional amendment allowing states to overturn Roe v. Wade.

1984: He votes for the Mexico City Policy which bans federal funding for abortions.

Dave Dubya said...

Thanks for the 20th Century history lesson, Peter. Do you remember Trump was a Democrat back then? People change. Some for the better, some for the worse. Trump was ALWAYS an asshole, though.

Here's the update for THIS century:

"My religion defines who I am. ... With regard to abortion, I accept my church's position that life begins at conception. That's the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. ... I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women can't control their body." Joe Biden 2012

Shaw Kenawe said...

Also, Dave, to add to your reply to P.H., Trump was also pro-choice until it wasn't convenient for his political goals.

Here's former Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill on what's ahead:

Former Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill

In MO the moment Roe falls, law will dictate the following: life begins at conception, all termination of that life..even morning after pill, IUD will be illegal. No exceptions for rape or incest. And makes docs helping families have a baby thru IVF subject to criminal charges.

If anyone thinks this is an exaggeration, they're not paying attention. The patriarchy is on the warpath against women. This isn't about their concern for the "sanctity of life." This is how they control women.

I'm so grateful that I live in a sane blue state, Massachusetts.

What we're seeing is the conservative Catholics and Evangelicals imposing their religious beliefs on an entire country.

We're going to see some interesting results of this Supreme Court's overreach.

Dave Dubya said...

Shaw,

"Patriarchy" seems too kind and fatherly for the Fascist American Taliban. The "FAT" sounds more apt, maybe?

Yes, there should be some massive blowback against the authoritarians of the Right this fall.

The Supreme Liars and Supreme Insurrectionist Thomas need to be impeached. They lied under oath and attacked our Constitution.

Impeachment won't go anywhere, but it needs to happen to send a signal that enough is enough.

Anonymous said...

I love watching Tyrant Dave having a melt down cause the murder of children could be restricted..BTW Biden said CHILD, not lumps of tissue. Our president said abortion ends the life of a CHILD, and you're all for it...and you talk about good ole fashion American values, LOL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AELwQu-kayU

BIDEN: "The idea that we're gonna make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a CHILD based on a decision by the Supreme Court I think goes way overboard." pic.twitter.com/Kxr2D537LZ

PBS White House Yamiche Alcindor reporter laments how some women will be stuck with “pregnancies that will turn into children”..

At last, the pro aborts admit that abortion ends the life of a child. How Nazi of them.

CHILDREN!!

Dave Dubya said...


We’ve long known Vern is anti-choice and vehemently opposed to reproductive freedom for women.

He believes a “lump of tissue” is a person, and that’s his right. It is his religious belief. An he should live by his belief and never have an abortion. (Well done, Vern.)

I’ll allow him to vent his feelings. (as all Tyrants do?) He is certain of his righteousness and beliefs. Unfortunately his inability to understand the accepted meanings of words forms his beliefs, and undermines his understanding of why women need the right to reproductive freedom.

Vern won’t care if someone can be personally against abortion AND government intrusion into a woman’s body to control outcomes of pregnancies. This position is called pro-choice, not promoting, performing, denying, or banning abortion. It’s not my business, not the governments business, and certainly not conservative white politicians’ business.

And it’s definitely not ANY of Vern’s business. It is not his, or anybody else’s business, to force others to conform to his religious beliefs.

It is the woman’s private business between her and her doctor. It is her matter. It is her financial and health circumstances. It is her body. It is her choice. It is HER life.

Right.

Now, Vern,
Let’s talk about words and their meanings, shall we?

A Tyrant wouldn’t allow you to freely express your hatred for him, would he?

Definition of tyrant
1a: an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
b: a usurper of sovereignty
2a: a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
b: one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power


Vern must have his own definition of a “melt down” too.

Definition of meltdown
1: the accidental melting of the core of a nuclear reactor
2: a rapid or disastrous decline or collapse
3: a breakdown of self-control (as from fatigue or overstimulation)


Abortion is NOT murder.

Definition of murder
1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice

A miscarriage is NOT a homicide. A zygote is NOT a person. Like Vern, it is a lump of tissue. We all are. So is a placenta, the part that is directly connected to the womb. An ectopic pregnancy is tissue attached to the fallopian tube, a part of her body. It will not be born and it can kill her.

The only case when the unborn are defined as “child” is when the mother is expecting to deliver it. The expression is, “She is with child”.

Otherwise:
Definition of child
1a: a young person especially between infancy and puberty
b: a person not yet of the age of majority
c: a childlike or childish person
2a: a son or daughter of human parents
b: DESCENDANT the children of Israel


Vern reports:
Yamiche Alcindor reporter laments how some women will be stuck with “pregnancies that will turn into children”..

Yes. Pregnancy precedes childhood. We all agree.

At last, the pro aborts admit that abortion ends the life of a child.

No. As we agreed, pregnancy precedes childhood. Birth or abortion ends the pregnancy, not a childhood. Birth ends the pregnancy and the child enters his time “between infancy and puberty”.

How Nazi of them.

This is wrong in every sense.

I already reported the fact Nazis banned abortions.

And here’s the definition of Nazi:

Definition of Nazi
1: a member of a German fascist party controlling Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler
2often not capitalized
a: one who espouses the beliefs and policies of the German Nazis : FASCIST
b: one who is likened to a German Nazi : a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person


CHILDREN!!

Yes, what about the children? Who will feed them? Who will raise them? Who will pay for them? Who will provide healthcare? Who will provide a safe nurturing home?

Shaw Kenawe said...

"I love watching Tyrant Dave having a melt down cause the murder of children>"

I wouldn't bother arguing with someone who uses incendiary language like the above.



Dave Dubya said...

Shaw,
He likes to hide behind "Anonymous", and Vern has used a number of different names, but he's easy to spot. His hate is his red flag, and it matches his hat.

He feels entitled to spew his hate and lies on my blog.

He's a racist and bigot, and ALWAYS the crybaby "victim" of my "tyranny", but will accuse me of being a "commie racist".

That's how stupid and brainwashed he is. You know the type of mental derangement he shares with other racists, fascists, and white nationalist authoritarians.

He believes he is the oppressed one, of course. Never mind he supports the party that is destroying our democracy and stripping rights from women.

I don't publish the worst of his racism, but once in a while I'll let others see his ignorance and malevolence that characterizes his radical Right, neo-fascist Trump Cult.

I like to use him as an object lesson.

I also enjoy deconstructing and exposing their indoctrination and abuse of language as they invent their own definitions of words. These are not honest people.

No dictionary defines a zygote as a "person", abortion as "murder", etc.

And there's nothing quite like the hypocrisy of their white nationalist "Christian hate", is there? They blatantly, and even gleefully, reject the commandment of their Savior to love their fellow man.

"This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." – John 15:12

We've seen how much that means to them, haven't we?

He thinks his hate for us is a virtue and allowable, as if he has a "get out of hell free card" by saying he is a Christian.

Such hypocrites were warned, but as I said, they will ignore their Savior to embrace hate.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’- Matthew 7:21-23

They think they're so special. Bless their cold, dark, little hearts.

No wonder Trump is their true messiah.

Dave Dubya said...

Just a reminder that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had described Roe v Wade “settled as precedent” in his Senate confirmation hearing, while Justice Neil Gorsuch said it was “settled law” during his hearing.

They either lied under oath or violated settled law by judicial decree.

The Court was stolen. Anyone who says the Right "played by the rules" is a liar.

Moscow Mitch violated the Constitution by not having a hearing on Garland EIGHT MONTHS before an election, then rammed through Barrett DURING an election.

Still no explanation why Kennedy retired after we learned his son worked for the fraudulent Deutsche Bank that loaned to Trump.

Still waiting to learn who secretly payed off Kavanaugh's debts. No corruption there, amirite?

Dave Dubya said...

Catholic Sunday School teacher Stephen Colbert: “If these folks believe Roe was so egregiously decided, why didn’t they tell the senators during their confirmation hearings? Because Americans support abortion at 80%. They knew if they were honest they wouldn’t get the job, so they lied, which is perjury.”

List of what Jesus said about abortion:
1. ________

Dave Dubya said...



Q: How many Republicans does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. Republicans are afraid of change—even if it makes the world a brighter place.

(They prefer the darkness of ignorance, hate and lies.)

PeterHenderson1 said...



Since we now know that abortion ends the life of a child, (per President Biden and others who are pro choice), here is what Jesus said about children.

1. “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them.” . . . And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them. (Mark 10:14-16)

2. "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3-4)

3. Jesus predicted the terrible days when fathers would give their children up to death. "And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child." (Mark 13:12)

4. And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.” ( Luke 18:15-15-17)

5 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 18:10)

6. "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish." (Matthew 18:14)

You can't do any of these things with a child that Jesus commanded if the child is aborted, IE murdered.


What the Old Testament says about children.

1. “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22-25)

2) "Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward." (Psalm 127:3)

And then there is this.."For out of the heart come evil thoughts, MURDER, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander." Jesus (Matthew 15:19)

Anonymous said...

It took 40 years to get to this point. Blame the American people who continued to vote for Republicans for president who get to nominate Supreme Court justices. Republicans never made it a secret that they wanted to overturn Row/Wade. The people gave them the political power to do that. The Democrats had 40 years to make a court decision constitutional law, but they never did. Now it's their only option.

U.P. Tim said...

Dave,

It looks like the Republicans are the dog that caught the car. It's just amazing how they (cowards) don't have the guts to talk about the draft opinion in itself. They have their panties all in a knot and are going with the "leak" angle. One would think they'd be boasting to their deplorable base. I think they realize that a decision like this may dry up some of their fundraising. These are going to be some interesting times ahead.

I also want to know who paid off Kavanaugh's debts, also.

I'm going to place my bet on Ginnie Thomas, as having something to do with or possibly being the leaker.

Dave Dubya said...

Peter,
Your premise is fallacious. Biden's authority on that particular definition of a child is from his Catholic Pope. This isn't the position of most pro-choice people. What "we know" cannot be reasonably founded on the claims of any church or politician.

Ask Galileo.

Zygote or blastocyst are nowhere defined as a child. Did you read the definitions above?

The most commonly accepted definition of child is from infancy through puberty.

Everyone executed by the state is a child of his parents. Why isn't that "killing a child" to you? The reality is children are abused in churches every day.

Jesus spoke of children, NOT a fetus.

Ripping a fetus out of a woman wasn't exactly condemned in the Old Testament.

Hosea 9:16
Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.

Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Isaiah 13

15Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.

16Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

17Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.

18Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children.


Many religious people believe life begins with the first breath of air:

Genesis 2:7, KJV: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

NO religion is the final authority in our Constitutional law. Sorry.

Forcing others to live according to your religion is by definition, anti-American.

Dave Dubya said...

Tim,
It is likely Traitor Ginni would be the leaker.

The radical Right has pushed the majority of Americans to the wall now. MOST of us are pro-choice. The blowback will be reflected in this coming election. We'll see how many will tolerate minority rule.

Dave Dubya said...

Anonymous,
"Blame the American people who continued to vote for Republicans for president..."

Yes, they are to blame, but remember MORE Americans voted for the Democrat in 7 of the 8 past elections. The blame goes back to the founders' anti-democratic compromise on electors, NOT the majority of voters, deciding who wins.

This unrepresentative Supreme Court isn't based on the consent of the governed. It is a symptom of minority rule.

Dave Dubya said...

“Women in places like South Dakota, Missouri, Texas will have the exact same Abortion Rights as women in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Yeah just think about that: We just evacuated people out of Afghanistan, now we’re gonna have to evacuate them out of Tennessee?”

—TREVOR NOAH

Anonymous said...

That electoral process is something we have lived with for 250 years. We know what we need to do to change it. Complaints about that process have been around since it was written, yet no change in the Constitution. Both sides have played with the same rules, that's fair. At one time, or another one side, or the other have gained an unfair advantage with the rules. It's not a one-sided unfairness. When Rosevelt was President for almost 16 years and the positions of political leadership was mostly Democratic across the country, Democrats had a gerrymander advantage that was absolute, and Republicans cried foul just as Democrats are crying foul today. What's fair is fair, or if you want, what's unfair is unfair. Republicans hated Rosevelt as much as Democrats hate Trump.

Dave Dubya said...

The rules are anti-democratic, therefor unfair. Period.

The age of the rules is irrelevant. Even with Democrats, small states had disproportionate power.

Only ONE party has taken the White House several times with fewer votes than the opponent. It is now the pattern.

There is nothing fair about rules that favor one side. Period.

Just don't claim this is a representative democratic republic. It isn't.

No definition of these terms apply to the US when some voters have more power and influence than others.

Anonymous said...

"There is nothing fair about rules that favor one side. Period."

You are wrong.

As I pointed out the rules favor whoever is in power by election. Both sides have had the same advantage.

You see your position through a biased political slant. That's your problem.

Dave Dubya said...

Anonymous, you are wrong.

Rules do not define fairness. Nor does the law.

There is nothing fair about rules that favor one side. Period.

There's nothing fair about some voters having more power than others.

There is nothing fair about the filibuster, and Wyoming and Vermont having as many senators and New York and California.

Just because something is constitutional, doesn't imply fairness, or do you think slavery was fair?

If you want to make a case, define your terms and we can discuss. Otherwise your assertions lack defined and rational support.

Definition of fair:
1a: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism

When rules favor one party over another, they are not fair, by this definition.

And don't try to tell my what my problem is. Your judgement is through a biased slant.

Anonymous said...

Total BS. Stop thinking with a biased mind. Although that's not possible for you.

Dave Dubya said...

Very helpful, Anonymous Jerry.

You can't disprove or refute me with facts or logic, so you make it personal.

Sorry you're not up to good faith, rational discussion.

Bye.

Chuck said...

It is amazing that leftists claim the moral high ground as they screeeeech about some states eventually eliminating abortions, while California is excited about abortion tourism. The left demands the right to sacrifice unborn children on the alter of "choice" for all states under this authoritarian regime. THAT is what this is all about. It is almost demonic in its evil. Cue the hatred from the author now...

Dave Dubya said...

Chuck seems to be unaware of the fact abortions have NEVER been eliminated, despite laws against it. Only safe legal abortions were eliminated.

Women will die, but to the radical Right, a woman is a reproduction mill, not a person with rights over what happens to their bodies. An embryo has more rights.

If Chuck wants to be on the moral high ground he would be willing to pay taxes for universal healthcare for the child after it is born, with pre-natal care for all pregnant women.

But we all know he's not so concerned about life after birth, though.

In what world is calling someone "demonic and evil", for committing no crime or injury, morally acceptable?

He's displaying pure hatred and projecting it, of course. What have I ever said about him for him to hate me so much?

He seems clueless about what an authoritarian regime is, despite my showing a most authoritarian regime in history banning abortion.

I welcome Chuck to discuss these points I made:

Let’s remember theocracy and fascism are both inherently built on inequality.

On October 10, 1936 Heinrich Himmler created the Reich Central Office for Combating Homosexuality and Abortion, or Special Office (II S), a sub-department of Executive Department II of the Gestapo.

What’s the difference between the “Master race” and the “Master Gender”, when it comes down to the rights of minorities and women?

Neither of these authoritarian mindsets have a high opinion of equality and democracy.


Chuck seems to believe Nazis held the moral high ground. I'd bet Chuck also has a very low opinion of equality and democracy as well.

Oh, and he WILL see this response to his hate as "hatred". The radical Right always see themselves as the "victims". They even think white men, not Blacks, are the "real victims" of racism.

Yeah, they do. Bless their hearts.


Dave Dubya said...

CBS News poll:

Roe v Wade: The Supreme Court should...

Keep as is 64%
Overturn it 36%

Minority rule ALWAYS leads to tyranny.

Chuck said...

Dave Dubya, you must have me confused with someone else as that was the first time I had ever been to your left wing blog.

Oh, and regarding your obtuse statement, "In what world is calling someone "demonic and evil", for committing no crime or injury, morally acceptable?" you seem to forget the KILLING of an unborn child in the process. I'd say that was somewhat more than an "injury" particularly since the left has gone from "rare and only when necessary" to "on demand and without apology". This includes all the way up to the point of birth. THAT is demonic and the moral high ground you and the left are standing upon.

By the way, that unborn child is NOT a part of the woman's body. It is a separate and distinct life all on its own. To the left, it is something worthy of derision to be eradicated and terminated with extreme prejudice. Yeah, you stand on your "high ground" and defend that ghoulishness.

Last, a moral and just government is supposed to protect its citizens, especially its most vulnerable. Why does the left only scream about their "rights" when it involves confiscation of other's money or the right to do sick or perverted things like confuse small children about their sexual identity or championing the killing of the unborn?

Not sure I'll bother to come back. I have read enough to know exactly the kind of person you are and what you support. It is the height of irony that you use Nazism as an epithet to throw around at people with whom you disagree.

Chuck said...

Oh, and look at how quickly your percentages change when Americans are asked if they support abortion in the 2nd or 3rd trimesters. Your majority no longer exists then.

Anonymous said...

If the majority of Americans want abortion as claimed by leftists, then is should be no problem at all to amend the Constitution giving a right to an abortion. Why hasn't that happened?

Dave Dubya said...

Chuck,
I'm not confusing you with anyone. I address YOUR words.

Fact: The majority is pro-choice through the first trimester. Pro-choice is pro-choice.

Fact: The minority wants to eliminate ALL abortions. That is anti-choice minority rule.

Fact: Most Americans don't define an embryo as a "child". See definitions.

Definition of child
1a: a young person especially between infancy and puberty
b: a person not yet of the age of majority
c: a childlike or childish person
2a: a son or daughter of human parents
b: DESCENDANT the children of Israel

You don't have the right to define words to mean only what you want them to mean.

Murdering a living breathing child is absolutely evil. Nobody is arguing that. We don't use the term for it, but executing people who may be innocent is also killing someone's "child", isn't it? Killing any living breathing human is wrong, if you are pro-life.

As I noted:

Many religious people believe life begins with the first breath of air:

Genesis 2:7, KJV: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

NO religion is the final authority in our Constitutional law. Sorry.

Forcing others to live according to your religion is by definition, anti-American.


Then you proceed to LIE:

"on demand and without apology". This includes all the way up to the point of birth. THAT is demonic and the moral high ground you and the left are standing upon.

I never made such a claim, and you certainly can't show where a large number of liberals would support abortion up to birth. I never performed an abortion or criminally injured anyone.

So you lie again, and define words to mean only what you want them to mean

You're saying a zygote or embryo is a "citizen" the government needs to monitor and protect? This is a radical fringe belief.

An embryo is NOT a citizen by any definition. But you're special, right? YOU get to define words that others must conform to. Got it. That is authoritarian, just so you know.

Pregnancy IS a condition of HER health, and impacts her future well-being. Not yours.

A fetus IS attached to the woman and it IS within her body. It is not a person, any more than an acorn is an oak tree. Carrying it to term is her decision, not yours or anyone else's.

Then what happens to a sick baby or mother that needs long term care?

We KNOW you don't give a damn about life after birth. Your answer is "You're both on your own".

"Why does the left only scream about their "rights" when it involves confiscation of other's money.."

Unlike anti-abortion laws, taxes ARE in the Constitution. Read it sometime.

When you support public healthcare and universal pre-natal care, I'll consider your claim to be pro-life. All you are is pro-birth. After that you don't really give a damn. And it pisses you off that we know this about the radical Right theocrats.

And don't blame ME if you agree with a Nazi policy that suppressed reproductive freedom. I was showing you the fact that denying women's reproductive freedom IS authoritarian.

In the meantime I won't interfere with your right to have or not have children. I wish you wouldn't though, if all you do is teach them to hate others and indoctrinate them into theocracy and radical Right ideology.


Dave Dubya said...

Anonymous shows he hasn't read the Constitution: "If the majority of Americans want abortion as claimed by leftists, then is should be no problem at all to amend the Constitution giving a right to an abortion. Why hasn't that happened?"

It takes a super majority to change it but a minority can block it.

And "majority of Americans want abortion" is not true. They want reproductive freedom.

Anonymous said...

Word salad, figures. A minority cannot stop an amendment to the Constitution. The left claims a super majority are for abortions. Word salad all you want it's the only way to defend yourself.

Dave Dubya said...

The crazed Right can't help it. They're so special they get to make up their own meanings of words. How entitled of them. It must soothe their paranoid sense of victimhood.

I'll thank Anonymous for his last display of ignorance.

He has no clue what word salad is,of course, so here it is: "a confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases".

If my rational and coherent words are unintelligible to him, he's the one confused.

And confused he is. He proves he's never read the Constitution.

Anonymous says: "A minority cannot stop an amendment to the Constitution.

The Constitution says: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,

Who ya gonna believe? Anonymous or the Constitution?

But wait, maybe he DID read this, but has no grasp of what two thirds and three fourths mean?

He'll have to make up his own definitions. Probably because he can't trust math books anymore, what with all that Marxist Critical Race Theory what's in 'em.

De Santis and those Florida Republicans weren't fooled by those commie leftist math authors, telling their kids they're racists and should be ashamed they hate America.

It's just danged common sense!

"Word salad all you want it's the only way to defend yourself."

Run-on sentences are a feature of word salad.

Always with the projection...


Dave Dubya said...

"The left demands the right to sacrifice unborn children on the alter of "choice" for all states under this authoritarian regime. THAT is what this is all about." - Chuck

Does Chuck believe the "left" is demanding he has an abortion?

Does Chuck believe the "left" is demanding anyone have an abortion?

Nobody is demanding anyone have an abortion.

How deranged and paranoid can the radical Right be?

Very deranged and very paranoid.

Chuck doesn't see anything authoritarian about the government eliminating reproductive freedom, government intrusion into personal lives and medical decisions, and government dictating mandatory birth for all women.

No wonder he needs to make up his delusional lies.

These people are completely irrational and judgmental. Not a good combination for those with all the power of the Senate and courts.





Chuck said...

word salad - "a confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases".

Or in other words, a Biden press conference.

Dave thinks that there is nothing wrong with killing unborn life. It is the woman's right to do so, even though the latest leftist jurist on the SCOTUS cannot even define what a "woman" is.

Its interesting to see all of these mostly peaceful tolerant leftists fire-bombing pregnancy centers and forcing Justice Alito to have to move his family to an undisclosed location for their own safety. Yeah... it is the right that is dangerous in Dave's mind. This is what happens when there is a logical disconnect from truth and reality. The final outcome of it is demonstrated by the cognitively impaired and morally bankrupt person occupying the oval office that a supposed majority thought was competent enough to govern our nation.

Cue more deflection, whining, and unsupported accusations.

PeterHenderson1 said...

Over turning Roe would return the regulations on abortion back to the voters of each State. Which is the very definition of democracy.

Democracy is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation, or to choose governing officials to do so.

Do those who oppose the over turn of Roe also oppose democracy? It appears they do. If those who are Pro-Choice are in the majority position as they claim, why are they afraid of the people in a State from voting?

If over turning Roe by a vote of just six justices is not democracy, isn't approving Roe by six justices also not democracy? Let the citizens of each State decide what they want done in their State. That's democracy.


Chuck said...

Bravo and well-said PeterHenderson1!

Dave Dubya said...

If I think "there is nothing wrong with killing unborn life", Chuck thinks women are government-owned breeders.

Like MOST AMERICANS, I am pro-choice, and I happen to oppose third trimester abortions unless it is to save the woman's life, but that won't stop the hate and lies directed at me, will it?

Asking a Black woman what a woman is amounts to a racist-tinged insult. Jackson could have said, "I am a woman", but that wouldn't satisfy the questioner's agenda to smear LGTBQ people.

This is they way of the radical Right.

Jackson referred her to a biologist, someone like Rebecca Jordan-Young, a scientist and gender studies scholar at Barnard College.

"The rest of her answer was more interesting and important. She said 'as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide.' In other words, she said context matters – which is true in both biology and society. I think that's a pretty good answer for a judge."

While traditional notions of sex and gender suggest a simple binary – if you are born with a penis, you are male and identify as a man and if you are born with a vagina, you are female and identify as a woman – the reality, gender experts say, is more complex.

"There isn't one single 'biological' answer to the definition of a woman. There's not even a singular biological answer to the question of 'what is a female,'" Jordan-Young said.

There are at least six different biological markers of “sex” in the body: genitals, chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive structures, hormone ratios and secondary sex characteristics. None of the six is strictly dichotomous, Jordan-Young said, and the different markers don’t always align.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2022/03/24/marsha-blackburn-asked-ketanji-jackson-define-woman-science/7152439001/

This is unacceptable to the ones who think a woman is a government-owned, government-controlled breeder.

Those poor judges need to follow their own advice to women they want to strip of their right of reproductive freedom. If they are unhappy, they can always move.

Is there any doubt the radical Right would storm their homes if they banned AR-15s?

Hell, those traitors stormed our Capitol to overturn a fair election.

If Chuck thinks pro-choice people are more dangerous than the fanatic anti-choice murderers, his disconnect from truth and reality is as obvious as his lack of values.

Dave Dubya said...



Peter,
Every action from the Right is diametrically opposed to democracy. They obstructed emancipation, women suffrage, Civil Rights, and continue to make it harder to vote. They support everything that undermines democracy. Opposing the will of the majority is the antithesis of democracy.

And that's exactly what the conservatives and Trump Justices are about.

Those Justices are a product of minority rule, not democracy. Democrats won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 elections, but the Right stole seats and stacked the Court.

The Right's choices of Justices came straight from the dark-money pools of the Federalist Society and Judicial Crisis Network. AKA "democracy" in the Right's mentality.

The ONLY "qualification" was the will to overturn reproductive freedom. They also perjured themselves in testimony to the Senate, saying Roe v Wade was “settled as precedent”.

The will of the majority be damned. And since you have no problem with that, your lecture on democracy falls flat.

Those who overturn Roe v Wade are exactly the ones who oppose democracy and consent of the governed.

They seek minority rule. In addition, a democracy is defined by majority rule and minority rights, NOT minority rule and stripping of rights.

What happened when we let states determine which groups or individuals have more rights than others?

Civil rights are never the result of separate states deciding who gets them and who doesn't. This is why we have a federal government, and why the slave states needed to be defeated.

By law, a zygote and embryo are not persons. Aborting them is not murder, by any definition.

Definition of murder
1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice

But then, the radical Right has no respect for accepted meanings and definitions, they want total authority to dishonestly define any word to fit their agenda.

PeterHenderson1 said...

"Every action from the Right is diametrically opposed to democracy. They obstructed emancipation, women suffrage, Civil Rights, and continue to make it harder to vote. They support everything that undermines democracy. Opposing the will of the majority is the antithesis of democracy."

History shows that entire paragraph is a lie. It is clear from your response that when it comes to history and democracy you haven't a clue. Only talking points.

"The will of the majority be damned. And since you have no problem with that, your lecture on democracy falls flat.
Those who overturn Roe v Wade are exactly the ones who oppose democracy and consent of the governed."

Why is Dave an the Pro-Choice cult afraid of allowing the people to exercise their democratic right and vote in their State on the issue of abortion? Is he anti-democracy? Seems so.

Dave Dubya said...

Peter,
You have zero credibility to lecture me on history. Conservatives, NOT progressives opposed all those advancements in civil and voting rights.

Or have you re-defined the meanings of those words too?

You offer zero evidence to support your accusation. This is also a dominant characteristic on the radical Right. It's easier to hate and demonize without facts and rational conclusions.

Your Dear Leader and his cult call democrats "communists". That's all we need to see the glaring ignorance and hate that drives them.

"Pro-choice cult". Again, accusation without evidence. It is a pro-choice MAJORITY.

But cults can only project. "...afraid of allowing the people to exercise their democratic right and vote".

Only the radical Right is gerrymandering away fair representation for Blacks. Only the radical Right is passing laws that make voting more difficult. Only the radical Right is removing ballot drop boxes and restricting mail-in ballots. Only the radical Right is whining, “Biden stole the election”. Only the Right is lying about “massive voter fraud”.

The are called facts.

Opposing the will of the majority is the antithesis of democracy.

But by all means, keep pissing on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Your Dear Cult Leader’s Big Lie got slammed down again by a court.

The right-wing cable network One America News Network on Monday ran a pre-recorded 30-second segment acknowledging that there was “no widespread voter fraud” by Georgia election workers in the 2020 presidential election. The segment appears to be part of a recent settlement relating to a defamation lawsuit brought against the network by two such workers.

The segment notes that an investigation by state officials into unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud made by ex-President Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani turned up nothing. “The results of this investigation indicate that Ruby Freeman and Wandrea ‘Shaye’ Moss did not engage in ballot fraud or criminal misconduct,” a narrator states.


Trump’s Big Lie is the radical Right’s cover to suppress voter rights. Look what happened in Texas.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2022/03/13/27000-rejected-ballots-is-unacceptable/

Dallas Morning News: 27,000 rejected ballots is unacceptable

Easy to vote and hard to cheat? Apparently not.

Does your vote count? Probably. Maybe. If you got the paperwork right. And if it didn’t count this time, we’ll make sure it does next time.

That seems to be the message to many Texas voters — Republicans and Democrats alike — after more than 27,000 mail-in ballots were rejected in 120 counties for the March 1 primary, according to reporting by The Associated Press. Though many of those rejections may yet be remedied, early returns put the rejection rate among mail voters at about 17%, dramatically higher than in the 2020 general election, when fewer than 1% of mail-in ballots were rejected statewide, according to The AP.

To put it simply, that’s unacceptable.


Dave Dubya said...

Once again, for the slow ones in the back row:

Definition of democracy:
1a: government by the people especially : rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections


More from fundamentals of democracy originally produced and maintained by the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP), U.S. Department of State.

”Democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule, coupled with individual and minority rights. All democracies, while respecting the will of the majority, zealously protect the fundamental rights of individuals and minority groups.”

It is NOT a democracy when the minority denies rights that have existed for 50 years.

What part of majority rule and minority rights is so hard for you to grasp?

What part of separation of church and state is so hard for you to grasp?

If all you have are more groundless accusations and insults devoid of facts and evidence, please don't respond.

If you're up for good faith discussion, you're welcome to continue.

Chuck said...

First, separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution. It is a phrase from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. Most conservatives I know do not want a theocracy. The left doesn't want even a mention of God in public however.

Second, a judge should NOT make a decision based on "the will of the people" but rather on the rule of the law. Mob rule should not be the defining factor in a judge's decision. The left gets mad when they cannot get their agenda passed legislatively and therefore have riots to intimidate and coerce those that stand in the way of their mob-rule mentality.

"If Chuck thinks pro-choice people are more dangerous than the fanatic anti-choice murderers, his disconnect from truth and reality is as obvious as his lack of values."

You are sick! Yeah, the few rioters on 1/6 did not kill anyone. In fact one of the protesters was killed. Second, your pro-choice people have killed over 63 MILLION lives. I think maybe you need to get rid of your "new math" books.

You are a true leftist believer. I can see arguing with you is pointless after that last ludicrous statement. You are so jaded and entranced by the left that the irony of your statement is completely lost on you. Sad.

PeterHenderson1 said...

Having read your past posts, you still have zero credibility to lecture me on anything. You are now just spewing your old talking points.

I have not brought up the issue of separation of church and state, you have. You bring up Trump. Slavery. Voters rights. Religion. Why? Is it "red herring" time?

Based on your past posts it is clear you are now repeating your old claims and accusations. In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or its common interest in a particular personality, object, or goal. Can you deny this is not what Pro Choice supporters are?

Democracy is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation, or to choose (vote for) governing officials to do so. Why are you against it?

What I do not understand, if as you claim the majority of Americans favor the right to abort, why you are afraid of putting the issue of abortion to a vote in the States? Why are those in the pro choice cult so afraid of allowing voters to decide? Are they actually anti-democracy? You state denying a person the right to vote is anti-democracy, except on the issue of abortion? Is that your position?

I ask you for the final time, what part of majority rule are you afraid of? If there is a "pro-choice MAJORITY", let's have a State by State vote as called for by our Constitution and find out. If you're up for good faith discussion, you're welcome to continue. If not, I've got more important things to do, like rearranging my sock drawer.

Anonymous said...

It is odd that Dave who has said he doesn't believe in polls yet he posts this,

CBS News poll:

Roe v Wade: The Supreme Court should...

Keep as is 64%
Overturn it 36%

If the majority of Americans want abortion as claimed by leftists, then is should be no problem at all to amend the Constitution giving a right to an abortion. Why hasn't that happened?

For someone so supportive of voting rights, why the fear of allowing the people to vote? Let us vote and see what the only poll that counts results in.

Dave Dubya said...

Anonymous,
"If the majority of Americans want abortion as claimed by leftists, then is should be no problem at all to amend the Constitution giving a right to an abortion. Why hasn't that happened?"

This tells me you didn't read the Constitutional requirements for amendments, or you're just trolling in bad faith.

Your bad faith forfeits any further comments from you.

Bye.

Peter,
You've also ignored the Constitutional requirements for amendments, or you're just trolling in bad faith.

"What I do not understand, if as you claim the majority of Americans favor the right to abort, why you are afraid of putting the issue of abortion to a vote in the States? Why are those in the pro choice cult so afraid of allowing voters to decide? Are they actually anti-democracy? You state denying a person the right to vote is anti-democracy, except on the issue of abortion? Is that your position?"

Now you're putting words in my mouth. Did I say I was "afraid"? NO. Did ANYONE say they were afraid of putting the abortion issue to a vote? NO.

The only correct thing you said was, "I do not understand". This is because you don't read what I've written or respond to my words.

Very bad faith of you.

And cults have leaders, like your Qanon and Trumpists who cling to every damn lie they spew.

And you go right back to projection.

There is NO pro-choice cult. We have no Dear Leader to regurgitate like your Trump Cult, and we are the MAJORITY.

Then you double down on your nasty misrepresentation, of me being "against democracy" which makes it all a damn lie, or pathetically irrational.

But that's all you got against my facts, evidence and reason. None of which matter to religious fanatics and Trumpist neo-fascists.

You have rejected fair discussion, and I'm done with you ignoring and misrepresenting what I say. I don't need any more of your lame weak-minded false accusations.

All you had to do for good faith is quote my words and refute them with facts and reason.

You failed, through inability or just plain trolling.

I hope your sock drawer arrangement is better organized than your ability to reason and process words and concepts.

You may need to use one for a condom after your fellow fanatics finish their war on birth control.

Bye.



Dave Dubya said...

Chuck,

I’m going to entertain your points one more time, since they are a rainbow of misinformation, deflections and fallacies.

”First, separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution. It is a phrase from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.

First, I NEVER claimed the phrase was in the Constitution. Focus on my actual words, not on your assumptions about them, please.

Second, there ARE phrases in the Constitution that address religion in government.

First in:
Article VI Sec. 3
“...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

And again in the 1st Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Jefferson explained the original intent and meaning in the Danbury letters: (The radical Right minority rejects it.)

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ʺmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,ʺ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Jefferson’s letter has been used by the Supreme Court, including Justice Hugo Black as “almost an authoritative declaration” as to the Founders’ intent for the Establishment Clause.

What the founders were fearing was theocracy and the likes of a Trump who promised to appoint only judges who would repeal Roe v Wade, and filled the bench with conservative Catholics who previously voiced opinions indicating their opposition to the ruling. It is not a coincidence that ALL his choices were all from a church that opposes abortion, and selected by the dark money Judicial Crisis and the Catholic Federalist Society with the same agenda.

This is the religious test prohibited by our Constitution, the same one traitor McConnell betrayed when he refuse to hear the Black president’s nominee 8 months before an election. Mitch lied that it was “too close to an election”, and proceeded to ram through Trump’s third Catholic DURING the 2020 election.

Such vile treachery is outside the rule of our Constitution, and the lies that go with it are common tools of the radical Right. Your anti-choice minority doesn’t care about abusing and violating the Constitution to get its way. This is not patriotism, but the opposite. This is not democracy, but the opposite.

Those same Catholic judges swore under oath they agreed Roe v Wade was settled law. They lied. Their entire mission was to overturn Roe v Wade, according the Republican Party platform, and Judicial Crisis and the Federalist Society goals.

I wish I could find comfort in your claim that most conservatives you know do not want a theocracy. I have to wonder if they don’t understand, or just don’t care, that theocracy is by definition anti-American, down to the core of our Constitution.

Yes, theocracy, like it’s spawn under “Divine Right of Kings” and the Taliban, is historically, an unjust, and failed system of minority rule government. Maybe your fellow conservatives would appreciate knowing this. Or maybe you are one of them?

I understand why you are defending the unborn zygote, embryo and fetus. Your religion may even tell you they have a soul, or is a child, or even a person.

You have the right to believe anything you want, and I defend that right. But you do not have the right to impose your religious beliefs on me, or any woman, or on the country.

The founders were quite about freedom of, and freedom from, religion.

As I defend your right to your belief, I also defend our Constitution.

(More to come.)

Dave Dubya said...



The rest of Chuck’s ludicrous comment is deflection to nonexistent “mob rule” lunacy and defense of their mob of traitors on 1/6. Yes, “mob rule” is yet another example of their projection.

Isn’t it telling that pro-choice people don’t kill actual persons, while the fanatic anti-choice are the ones guilty of murdering Doctors and staff at clinics?

No wonder his brain refused to process reality.

No wonder he had to deflect and lie about democracy and mobs.

Deflection, lies, false accusations, and projection are their default “safe place”.

It’s clear Chuck, Anonymous and Peter are no longer bound to any semblance of good faith discussion.

Just more of their unilateral definitions of words, and fake concern for the welfare of Black mothers and babies.

All three are now obsessed with regurgitating their radical Right projection fantasy that I “don’t want people to vote”.

No surprise, since they are also Trumpists who likely believe Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election.

They have nothing to add, and only want to vilify or lie about me and those who support reproductive rights and freedom from government ownership of their wombs and bodies.

These fanatics want women to be nothing but government controlled breeding stock. They literally revere an embryo over a living breathing woman.

They don’t give a damn about the welfare of mother and child after birth. They’re on their own. They will attack public education and public healthcare for the child because they are hypocrites, just they refuse to follow their Savior’s command to love people. Instead they embrace radical Right hate for all who don’t drink their radical Trump/Q Anon koolade.

They can go back to their hateful fantasy world of Dear Leader’s lies and their cult bubble made-up definitions of words.

They are only pro-birth, not pro-life. They can't even condemn the murder of clinic staff and deflected instead.

Their true mentality is accurately depicted in the "You're on you own" cartoon at the top of the post.

They don't give a damn about real people. Poor Blacks, especially. They want more Black babies raised in poverty without good education and healthcare.

And they HATE the fact that pro-choice Americans can see through them, to their ugly core.

Bye, boys.

PeterHenderson1 said...

Will AG Merrick B. Garland enforce the law as he has sworn to do?

Title 18, Section 1507 of the U.S. Code –

Federal law — Section 1507 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code — clearly states that it is unlawful to protest near a “residence occupied or used by [a] judge, juror, witness, or court officer” with the intent of influencing “the discharge of his duty,” adding that anyone who “uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

The reason is simple: It is obstruction of justice. Just as it is against the law to tamper with witnesses or jurors by intimidating them or their family, it’s unlawful to tamper with a Supreme Court justice by coming to their home to threaten, harass or coerce them to influence their vote in a case before the court.
Washington Post

Anyone who’s watched at episode of Law and Order knows that intimidating the family of a judge or witness is obstruction of justice. Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, told reporters she supports and encourages the peaceful protests.

The question is whether Ms. Psaki will face federal charges. Peaceful or not, those protests are illegal.

Dave Dubya said...

The hypocrisy of the radical Right shines again.

Violently storming our Capitol to overturn a fair election because Trump lied is "legitimate political discourse".

A law that says peaceful protesting is "obstruction of justice" is a law that violates our Constitutional right to free speech.

Non-threatening protesting of political activist judges who are bent on stripping women's rights is free speech. The liars testified under oath that Roe v Wade was settled law.

That is perjury. Impeach them now. They are the real criminals.

Of course there are big loopholes. Exercising a 1st Amendment right to object to and display outrage over, lying judges who've committed perjury isn't technically "intent of influencing".

Plus overturning settled law to conform to his religion isn't exactly "his duty", it is his Catholic/religious/political agenda.

If Trump didn't obstruct justice by firing Comey and bullying Mueller, protesting by free speech is nothing near obstruction of justice.

Good luck proving it, though.

Chuck said...

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps there are conservatives out there, myself included, that do condemn violence whether it is by 1/6 idiots, BLM, Antifa, or pro-abortion radicals? Not sure where the race issues were brought into this debate... guess that is just more deflection on your behalf, Dave.

While I am attempting to have a one-sided good-faith discussion with you, what would you say if a compromise could be reached so that only first trimester abortions were allowed nation-wide but second and third were not? You could eliminate the "zygote" or "embryo" but not the more developed child. Would you accept that? Would the radical left?

Dave Dubya said...

Chuck,
Good for you for condemning the 1/6 insurrectionists.

However, your party labeled Trump's coup as "legitimate political discourse". This is dangerously dishonest and contributes to their war on our elections and democracy. Some on the Right might condemn Trump's violent coup, but will almost always fail to condemn Trump's Big Lie that triggered it. Not only that, Trump PRAISED his mob of thugs, saying they're "special" and he "loves" them, AND repeated his Big Lie, framing them as the "victims".

This is fascism all the way. It breeds only more hate and violence.

And when you, Peter and Anonymous suggest I "don't want people to vote", you're playing the same dishonest game. Stop lying about me and I'll stop telling the truth about you, to borrow an old phrase.

You raise fair points and questions this time.

I condemn all destructive rioting and violence, even though they are protesting injustice.

Racial injustice and police brutality are why there are protests that have lead to destructive acts. Forcing poor single

Forcing single poor Black women to bear children is extending poverty and hunger into the next generation. Especially in context of the Right's stand against public safety nets, public education and public healthcare. That's why I mentioned race. Keeping people poor and vulnerable to disease and violence is also an injustice. The lack of money and opportunities is why there are so many abortions among poor Black people.

I don't support 3rd trimester abortions, but would in the case of the mother's health, or if the fetus didn't have a formed brain, nervous system, or essential physical features.

This is why outright total bans are just wrong. Do you believe any anti-choice advocates would accept only 1st trimester abortions? If any do, then some compromise could be found.

But the Right scorns any and all compromise, and wants absolute minority rule. They operate from a belief system based largely on their religious doctrines, Republican propaganda, and Trump's lies.

How can rational compromise happen with such fanatic true believers, who are now spewing hateful lies that democrats are communists who hate America?

Got any suggestions?

I won't call you a racist if you don't call me evil. Maybe that's a start?

PeterHenderson1 said...

Dave,

Do you want the citizens of each State to be able to regulation abortion laws of their State by voting? If so you support democracy and what the leaked Supreme Court ruling on Roe will do, IE: return the authority to the voters of the State.

I hope that after the elections, the abortion regulations in your State will best fit your views.

Dave Dubya said...

Peter,
My views are not important. A woman's right to reproductive freedom is what's important.

How about we let only women vote on women's rights? History shows conservative men have generally opposed equal rights, civil rights, and voting rights of minorities and women at every stage of progress.

As I noted, it isn't democracy without majority rule AND minority rights. There is also no democracy if the minority enforces rights of a fetus over the rights of a person.

A person's life is legally and practically measured, counted and defined from birth to death, not time in gestation.

I also think reproductive freedom is a civil right, and like all civil rights, should be protected at the federal level.

In case it hasn't occurred to you, govt. control of women's wombs IS INTRUSIVE BIG GOVERNMENT, and violates reproductive freedom, as well as medical and personal privacy.

And who will pay for the additional child care, health care, and foster homes? The pro-birth Right doesn't give a damn about the post-born, especially if they are poor and Black.

I understand nothing can change the religious belief that an embryo is a person who has a soul, but we are NOT a theocracy and religious preferences and beliefs have no place in the laws and Constitution of our land.

Now many on the Right are prepared to ban birth control. Birth control greatly reduces the need or demand for abortion, but the religious Right can't accept even that.

Sometimes even conscientious practice of birth control can fail. Then what?

How would you like it if YOU were told by the government to have sex only for procreation, even if you can't afford to raise a child?

That's what prohibition of abortion and plan B are essentially about.

PeterHenderson1 said...

"Peter and Anonymous suggest I "don't want people to vote"

later

"how about we let only women vote on women's rights"

Dave Dubya

PeterHenderson1 said...

How about we allow only those who own property or pay income taxes to vote?

Dave Dubya said...

Peter,
How about you learn what a rhetorical question is?

Non-rhetorical questions:

How can rational compromise happen with such fanatic true believers, who are now spewing hateful lies that democrats are communists who hate America?

Got any suggestions?

Chuck said...

"How can rational compromise happen with such fanatic true believers, who are now spewing hateful lies that democrats are communists who hate America?"

Um... I think it can start with Democrats not being communists that hate America. :)

(Relax! It is a joke... sort of.)

Again though, taking your preposterous question about only letting women vote on the abortion issue, what would you say to those men that identify as women? Wouldn't they get to vote too? After all the definition of "woman" is fluid evidently or at least not accurately stated by anyone less than a biologist. THIS is what happens when the left redefines words.

Dave Dubya said...

"How about we allow only those who own property or pay income taxes to vote?"

That's how it was back when Black people in the South were counted as only three fifths a person.

On the other hand, this is why the Constitution was open to amendments.

Slavery was the most glaring poison pill for democracy, with two additional toxins that survive to this day.

The unrepresentative Senate and Electoral College are the two other egregious obstacles to a truly democratic representative republic.

"To form a more perfect union."

Well, that's gone now. Voting rights and women's rights are being rolled back, thanks largely to the founders' poison pills that suffocate democracy to this day.

All due to conservative white people having a greater proportion of representation than the majority.

But, hey, that's the "American way".

Dave Dubya said...

The left doesn't redefine words. I certainly don't and I don't know of anyone who does.

The left DOES tolerate trans people to self identify, and with hormone treatments and body alterations, they come closer to their chosen gender than originally presented.

Nobody is forced to accept their wishes or new identity, but only conservatives and bigots will be outraged by their identity struggle.

Why are you terrified of the very idea of allowing only the people forced to live under a law be allowed to vote on it?

Just as a minority dictating how the majority must live or vote, men dictating what a woman can do with her life is 100% theocratic/authoritarian.

The Right's idea of "big government" is very different from the VERY big government they wish to impose on women, their bodies, and their futures.

This irony is beyond comprehension by the Right.

"My body my choice" seems to apply to a piece of cloth over their face, but it is out of the question for women's medical and personal life.

We can see who are the real delicate snowflakes right there.

And again, they see no irony in such a glaring double standard.

PeterHenderson1 said...

Dave wants to limit who can vote then reverts, when confronted, by bringing up slavery. Interesting.
If Dave wants to allow only women to vote on abortion rules in his state, he needs to get that on the ballot and allow the people to vote on it. Democracy, Dave, democracy.

But wait, what about males who ID as female? Or Transgenders? Can they vote on abortion issues?

"How can rational compromise happen with such fanatic true believers, who are now spewing hateful lies that democrats are communists who hate America?"
Another "Red Herring". I never said "democrats are communists who hate America". But since you brought it up, prove they aren't.

Or are these rhetorical questions?

PeterHenderson1 said...

Chuck,

If it were not for the entertainment value of watching Dave twist himself into a knot trying to defend his statements, I'd never wasting another minute of my day reading and posting here.

In fact, I've got much better things to do, summer is almost here, my pool is now open, my yard needs my attention and it's time for fishing trips. So Dave, it's about democracy, that very thing the left and you claimed Trump was going to destroy, ironically I now see you promoting it's end.

Tip of the Day for Dave...stop your endless whining.

Have fun Chuck.

Dave Dubya said...

OK. Pete had his chance to engage in good faith discussion and not be a rude troll.

He blew it.

Here: "Dave wants to limit who can vote"

Only an asshole or idiot would think a rhetorical question reflects a personal desire. He was told it was rhetorical, and trolled anyway.

Here he shows he's either ignorant of what rhetorical questions are, or he's just trolling:

"If Dave wants to allow only women to vote..."

And then plays the patented Radical Right Victim Card:

"I never said "democrats are communists who hate America". But since you brought it up, prove they aren't."

I was talking about anti-choice authoritarian Republican zealots. Trump and his cult call democrats commies.

I wasn't accusing Poor, Poor Pitiful Pete, but the fragile guy took it personally, then insinuated that really IS what he FEELS. (No thought or evidence required.)

This reveals his fascist core. Those who disagree must be commies.

Pete shows himself to be either an Authoritarian Asshole or an Ignorant Idiot.

Maybe both?

Either way, he's nothing but a rude, arrogant, self-righteous, deliberately distorting, bad faith actor.

Tip of the Day for Pete.

Get your head out of Trump's fascist ass, and learn what a real communist is.

Hint: They are NOT Democrats.






Dave Dubya said...

Moved to this thread.

Anonymous wrote:
When Roe /Wade was being debated we were at war in Vietnam. The left won abortion rights, but the right held the White House. The majority seems to have a split mind on what they want from government.
~~
Yes, but the minority is bent on punishing or suppressing those who disagree with them.

Many more women will die as a result of losing their rights under a radical Right Supreme Court and regressive state legislatures and governors.

But this will not assuage their anger and hate. Their culture war is heating up to open civil war. All of their opposition will be stripped of rights and power if we let them.

Here's where the US is headed.

The radical Right Republicans are playing their commie card more than ever. "Democrats are communists" is their message.

All someone has to do to be labeled a communist is to be pro-choice, and support public education, public healthcare, racial and gender equality, and equal justice under law.

This is what they hate, and will smear as communism, just like they've done to CRT.

The enemies of democracy want their opponents framed as enemies of America. They are fueling resentment, anger and hatred for opponents in the same tradition as fascists of the past. Their long history of unilaterally defining terms sets them up for this.

When they have enough of a majority, they will declare the Democratic Party is a communist party, and pass laws against communists running for office. It's not difficult to predict this is their endgame. This is what they'll do if given the power.

Fascism will always aspire to greater tyranny if not stopped. History 101.

Today's red menace fear mongering is spreading like wildfire. We can expect it to get much worse.

Anonymous said...

HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher smacked Democrats on Friday during his show for moving away from their former position of “safe, legal, and rare” on abortion and attempting to ditch the label “pro-choice” for the more graphic term “pro-abortion.”

Maher cited the Clinton-era leftist abortion mantra of “safe, legal, and rare,” arguing “that’s not where the Democrats are now” and that they “don’t say that anymore.” He then proceeded to blast the pro-choice caucus in the House, suggesting they change “choice” to “decision” and potentially use “pro-abortion” instead.

He flatly stated that “No one should be pro-abortion.”

Anonymous said...

The democratic vote gave us these leaders and these leaders brought us to this point.

Dave Dubya said...

Maybe Republicans would be sufficiently outraged if we tell them that Payton Gendron killed 10 zygotes with an AR-15?

Daal said...

thank you for posting this - these are scary times...

Dave Dubya said...

Daal,
Thanks for stopping by. It really is scary watching a third of our country caught up in a massive authoritarian movement that threatens our democracy and future.

As if Putin's warmongering and global warming aren't ominous enough, we have fanatics on the Right bent on reversing progress and tearing apart our civil society.

It's up to the rest of to take a stand against the totally dishonest and corrupt radical Right.

Anonymous said...

"There is nothing fair about rules that favor one side. Period."

Rule: Parents need to feed children,
but children do not need to feed parents.

That's an example of "unfair" rule to you.

PS That's for the sake of "disprove or refute me with facts or logic".
If you don't like it still, you know what to do.



"A Tyrant wouldn’t allow you to freely express your hatred for him, would he?"

And answer is -- yes. If he can use it against you.
Like instigating riots to then make police to put em all in jail.
Like Putin do.


"This reveals his fascist core. Those who disagree must be commies."

That claim puzzles me to no end.
As far as I know for sure, that real deal historical commies was claiming exactly that -- that anybody who are not commie, is fascist.
While... which exactly "fascists" we are talking here? Italian? Spanish? Some other smaller representatives of that, new and popular in that time, ideological buzzwording? They all was different. And not that scary.



"Get your head out of Trump's fascist ass, and learn what a real communist is.

Hint: They are NOT Democrats."

Yeah. But they. Real historical commies. Liked to call themself democratic -- more democratic then anybody else. Providing rights to vote to just anybody, not just people with toughest purse, for example. Wouldn't you like the same?
So, as you can see, we came to historically aproved contradictions -- we cannot just believe to a mere word of anybody claiming to be Democratic.




"All someone has to do to be labeled a communist is to be pro-choice, and support public education, public healthcare, racial and gender equality, and equal justice under law."

They say they had it all. In USSR.
So, go figure.



"Fascism will always aspire to greater tyranny if not stopped. History 101."

Well. Again. What exactly historical fascism you see as that?

Dave Dubya said...

Anonymous,

Are you the same person as "foreign Anonymous"? If you are, then "French Anonymous" or whatever country you're from would suffice.

I'll publish and respond to your remarks after you give me a name to identity you from other anonymous posters. It's a good faith beginning to fair discussion.

Any name you like to use is fine for this thread.

Just understand if you can't respect this minor request, you're not entitled to the respect of a response.

Dave Dubya said...

Anonymous,
Since your remarks were in good faith, I'll address your points.

"There is nothing fair about rules that favor one side. Period." Rule: Parents need to feed children, but children do not need to feed parents.

I know of no written rule saying parents must feed children. They can hire staff to do it, or give them up for adoption.

The context of my statement was regarding US election rules and laws. It also reasonably applies to economics, (banking, stock trading, insurance, healthcare, etc.) governing, sports, games, contests, and competitions of all manner.

Rules and laws that favor one side are inherently unfair. Unfair rules can contribute to marginalization, resentment, injury, and conflict.

One value of democracy is majority rule along with minority rights. History shows minority rule threatens majority rights.

A tyrant is not allowing free expression of hatred of him, if he uses it to oppress and jail people. This is not how freedom of speech works.

”... historical commies was claiming exactly that -- that anybody who are not commie, is fascist.”

You’re correct that communists and fascists have always been adversaries.

Our historical communist allies in WWII called Germans and Japanese fascists, but never called Britons and Americans fascists.

However American fascists did call Democratic President Roosevelt a socialist and communist.

Falsely accusing Democrats of being communists is a growing symptom of fascist tendencies in the Republican Party. This is becoming more common since Trump joined their chorus of lies about Democrats being commies.

Thus: "Get your head out of Trump's fascist ass, and learn what a real communist is. Hint: They are NOT Democrats."

"Fascism will always aspire to greater tyranny if not stopped. History 101." ”Well. Again. What exactly historical fascism you see as that?”

Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Tojo’s Japan are three nationalist fascist movements that aspired to greater tyranny and military aggression until they were stopped in the Second World War. Saddam Hussein was a 21st Century fascist who was stopped. All were anti-democratic autocrats, along with their corporate elite allies, who amassed and expanded wealth and power though militarism, police states, war, brutality and violent suppression of political rivals.

Foreigner said...

\\Just understand if you can't respect this minor request, you're not entitled to the respect of a response.

No. Your request is perfectly justified.
Only, there is that minor trouble for me. You know, using nick names is somewhat a childish game -- of trying to pose as some imaginary figure, with capabilities and traits one most likely do not have.
So...


\\I know of no written rule saying parents must feed children. They can hire staff to do it, or give them up for adoption.

That is not an answer.

My point was wholely, in a sense of "facts and logic" excercise. To analyse issue better, one who poses rational mind and honors logical thinking -- must dissect issue at hand across lines of inner contradiction. And contradiction in your words was -- there really are rules that is "unfair". If you do not like parents and children example, there's many more.

For example driver of a bus or pilot. They have exclusive rights to drive. "That's unfair!"


\\Rules and laws that favor one side are inherently unfair. Unfair rules can contribute to marginalization, resentment, injury, and conflict.

My point is. "Fairness" is a very complex and hard phylosophical question.



\\A tyrant is not allowing free expression of hatred of him, if he uses it to oppress and jail people. This is not how freedom of speech works.

Well... he can hold his orders to police... and instead allow his mob to do that job...
or, he can use "civility" trick -- say "see how brutal and repulsive are thse who oppose great me, people of good will should condemn such brutes". ;-)



\\”... historical commies was claiming exactly that -- that anybody who are not commie, is fascist.”

\\You’re correct that communists and fascists have always been adversaries.


Am... like when? When they split Poland for example?
Well, communists was never too friendly with each other too.
I mean, "being adversaries" is a bad predictive trait to distinguish... sorts of brown matter.



\\Our historical communist allies in WWII called Germans and Japanese fascists, but never called Britons and Americans fascists.

Or... you just don't know about it...



\\Nazi Germany,

Hmm... but isn't nazi -- it's shortcut for national-SOCIALISM?


\\Mussolini’s Italy,

Well, they are true holder of that brand. But, fix me if I am wrong -- they was so stunningly unsuccessfull, that if we'd have only them as example of being "fascists"... that word would be synonym of being clumzy clowns, nothing more.


\\Tojo’s Japan

Well, I'm not sure. They was copying Western Europe nations behavior.
And spiced it with own version of medieval barbarism.
But was they really "fascists"?


And what about regime of Spain? What about Vishi's France?
What about admirers of Hitler in Britain and USA?


\\Saddam Hussein was a 21st Century fascist who was stopped.

But not from first try, I'd remark.


\\All were anti-democratic autocrats, along with their corporate elite allies, who amassed and expanded wealth and power though militarism, police states, war, brutality and violent suppression of political rivals.

Well, it all coincides with mid-20 century political and economical situation... but gives not that much cues for today. I'd admit.

Dave Dubya said...

I allow Anonymous users to post, as long as they are not being racist or demeaning.

Trolls who refuse to comply with my requests do not earn the dignity of replies.

I don't have time to chase after your tangential and hypothetical spin on "fair" and "rules" that ignore the stated context of my point. You have to warp all context and definitions to make it unreasonable or illogical.

Otherwise you are engaging in unilaterally redefining terms to suit your agenda, just as I discussed in the original post.

Pilots, Truck and bus drivers must conform to the rules of their respective licenses, don't they? Is there any reasonable argument that this is not fair?

"..Or... you just don't know about it..."

So why not show me where the US and Britain were called fascist by Russians or Chinese in WWII.

If you're trying to tell me I don't know something, and refuse to provide supporting facts and evidence, you are not engaging in good faith discussion. Do you understand this?

Or you just don't know about it and want to play games. Do you see how I can view your statement being dismissive and condescending?

Fascism isn't a single manifestation of tyranny. It comes in every every color under any flag. I have discussed the shared characteristics of the Axis in WWII that are considered fascism.

They fall under these accepted definitions and descriptions:

Fascism is a system of government led by a dictator who typically rules by forcefully and often violently suppressing opposition and criticism, controlling all industry and commerce, and promoting nationalism and often racism.

Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy that rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.


These do not describe a representative republic or democratic socialism, do they?

Feel free to disagree and make up your own definition, but I don't have to agree with it. It is just your opinion.

If your best judgment of fascists is they are "clumsy clowns", then you minimize all the suffering, pain and death they brought upon innocent human beings.

...but isn't nazi -- it's shortcut for national-SOCIALISM?

Or was it really more NATIONALIST "socialism"?

Hitler didn't name the party. It was called that before he joined and formed it into ultra nationalist fascism.

Do you take Hitler at his word, or think that calling itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" makes North Korea a democracy?

Are you beginning to understand why I discuss the destruction of language yet?

I suggest you read Orwell's "1984".

Foreigner said...

\\Pilots, Truck and bus drivers must conform to the rules of their respective licenses, don't they? Is there any reasonable argument that this is not fair?

I'll repeat your definition here.
"Rules and laws that favor one side are inherently unfair. Unfair rules can contribute to marginalization, resentment, injury, and conflict."

Rules can be played with, rules can become outdated, rules can be inapplyable in specific situation and so forth.

That is not refutation of need to have rules at all. But common sence thing we need to keep in our mind, if we want to talk about rules, change of rules, fairness of rules... seriously.


\\If your best judgment of fascists is they are "clumsy clowns", then you minimize all the suffering, pain and death they brought upon innocent human beings.

Humans was fighting long before words "fascism" emerged. And still fight. And deathes and suffering keep piling up even without flags with swasticas.
So?
My argument was strictly historical -- that if there'd be ONLY Italian true brand fascism... that word would not recieved that audacity it have till today... if there'd be no nazis atrocities.
So, really, why we use more broad termin "fascism"? While assigning to it all bad things from more specific "nazism"?
Isn't there some "redefinition of words meaning" happening?


\\...but isn't nazi -- it's shortcut for national-SOCIALISM?
\\
\\Or was it really more NATIONALIST "socialism"?

Well... it could be... if only there was some NON-nationalistic socialism.
Have an example?


\\Hitler didn't name the party. It was called that before he joined and formed it into ultra nationalist fascism.

So... what, he really added some secret ingridient? After which ordinary and already militaristic and dreaming of revanche country became "ultra nationalistic"?
To state it more clearly -- what realy was difference between Germany of First, and Germany of Second World War???


\\Do you take Hitler at his word, or think that calling itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" makes North Korea a democracy?

Yeah. But I understand why they do that.
Why they can call themself "people's republic".
While even you tend to call democracy in USA... em, oligarchic, isn't it?


PS I think, after I'll reveal my country of origin my reasons will be more clear and understandable. I hope. But without much hope, still.