Laughable; Liberals Holding Signs “Don’t Outlaw Abortion”

[Darryl]

Also wave signs at the border “Stop TEARING Babies From Their Mothers”

I need to watch CNN more so I can upgrade on intellect; right now I watch Fox News.

Darryl

[Doc]

somewhat ironic, huh.

Much like saying they dont want the gov't involved in medical decions concerning abortion, then mandate healthcare and require what you have.

Of course liberals dont have a patent on it. Conservatives got their hypocritical stances too.

[ukpumacat]

I was literally thinking about this today. On both sides of the political spectrum frankly.
But since the “liberal” side of hypocrisy has been presented let me at least ask about the conservative side.
And I am generally asking.
I don’t live in a super conservative state. But San Diego isn’t super liberal either. It’s more moderate than most people would assume.
Anyways, so we have a thread on this board about California possibly “banning soda” (they aren’t).
And the idea behind the thread is that liberals want to ban things (which they often do...no argument from me).

My question: why isn’t this principle applied across the board?

Meaning, why in Kentucky are 1/3 of the counties dry? Isn’t that a legit ban (unlike the soda thing).
Or abortion?
Or gay marriage?

On and on. I’m seriously asking this. Why is it ok to ban some things but not others?

I certainly would argue that it is easier to argue that soda does more harm to people than gay marriage does.

I would honestly love to hear from some of you that are on the conservative side and might live in a state where it’s easy to look at California and point out all that is “banned”. But ignore the things banned in their own home state simply because they disagree with those things themselves.

[Doc]

As I stated, the left does not have a patent on hypocrisy. The right wants the government out of your life unless you are gay, then they are happy to tell you who you can and can't marry. They want lower taxes but spend like drunken sailors. The list goes on

[Doc]

I was literally thinking about this today. On both sides of the political spectrum frankly.
But since the “liberal” side of hypocrisy has been presented let me at least ask about the conservative side.
And I am generally asking.
I don’t live in a super conservative state. But San Diego isn’t super liberal either. It’s more moderate than most people would assume.
Anyways, so we have a thread on this board about California possibly “banning soda” (they aren’t).
And the idea behind the thread is that liberals want to ban things (which they often do...no argument from me).

My question: why isn’t this principle applied across the board?

Meaning, why in Kentucky are 1/3 of the counties dry? Isn’t that a legit ban (unlike the soda thing).
Or abortion?
Or gay marriage?

On and on. I’m seriously asking this. Why is it ok to ban some things but not others?

I certainly would argue that it is easier to argue that soda does more harm to people than gay marriage does.

I would honestly love to hear from some of you that are on the conservative side and might live in a state where it’s easy to look at California and point out all that is “banned”. But ignore the things banned in their own home state simply because they disagree with those things themselves.

Not much banned here in FL. We don't have recreational pot and can buy liquor any day including Sunday. They do ban driving during hurricanes though...and are not required to leave your home in the event of a mandatory evacuation.

I'll comtemplate some others while I sip my tea through a plastic straw though.....something I can't do in CA.

As for soda doing more harm than gay marriage, not relevant. Should be my decision. One could also say that recreational marijuana does more harm then soda yet its legal in CA and has been for quite some time. That used to be a basic principle of this country, your unfettered ability to make choices concerning your individual health, occupation, residency, education, religion, etc... Slowly that is being chipped away

[ukpumacat]

Ps. Paper straws drives me nuts. They are gross. Haha

[kingcat]

Real men don’t drink through straws. Thats for the physically impaired, dainty types, and the elderly

Except for beer hats that is. You need hands free for the nachos

[Crazy4Blue]

kingcat - interested in your stance on abortion?

[dan_bgblue]

Regarding the "BAN" on alcohol sales in certain counties in my state, "BAN" is not the proper term to use to describe the situation. The registered voters of every county had and still have the right to vote the county or city wet or dry. There is a petition being circulated as I type to get a vote on alcohol sales outside the city limits of Bowling Green in the coming election cycle. It is called a local option vote.

[kingcat]

I am against abortion for birth control in MOST circumstances. Not all.(A distinction the law would have no way to make) And I believe doctors should be held to a high standard by the public. But I do not believe a fetus has rights equal to the mother in the womb. It is her child and it is not a citizen or the responsibility of the govt until it is delivered. A catch 22 (although intended as such for political purposes) exists in the two sides of the argument presented. Pro lifers would give equal rights to a fetus and outlaw all abortion. Wrong on many levels. Pro choice would have drive through abortion services on every urban street corner and farm supply store
That leaves us in a position where we must deal with the outlying problems in a social way and not attempt to legislate morality and (for lack of a better term) throw the baby out with the wash.
After all, those same legislators and most all purveyors of morality secretly support abortion in private when it affects them or their loved ones.

Despite skirting around the edges to frame their arguments, basically one says all must be illegal; the other says the opposite.
Like a political football on a field with no scoreboard.

A true story My grandmother was delivering my oldest Uncle (At home I believe) on my late Dads side. The doctor came to my grandfather and said he had two choices. Save the baby or save my grandmother and no time to question. My grand father told him, We can have another baby but I cant have another her.

If that baby, in the womb had equal rights to the mother, that could be considered murder. And any hesitation by the doctor to act and Im not here to discuss this.

So i believe, absent necessary compromise, which neither side actually wants, It will always come back to being a choice a mother and her doctor must make. I am pro good choices and pro hoping life dont hand you a bad one.


I think the courts recognize this. And I doubt we ever see any movement from where it now stands. Even if it were the right thing to do, almost everyone, judges, preachers, and politicians, have ghosts in their closet.

Whether they admit it or even know it.

[CitizenBBN]

Regarding the "BAN" on alcohol sales in certain counties in my state, "BAN" is not the proper term to use to describe the situation. The registered voters of every county had and still have the right to vote the county or city wet or dry. There is a petition being circulated as I type to get a vote on alcohol sales outside the city limits of Bowling Green in the coming election cycle. It is called a local option vote.

Alcohol laws are an oddity. Always have been, and while I couldn't agree more with Puma about the hypocrisy of both sides wanting government to regulate whatever they don't like and be hands off on things they do, alcohol has been one of those things that seems very local and has always been regulated heavily.

I've always loved the irony of kentucky being world famous for making liquor, and a big chunk of the state can't buy liquor. huh?

[kingcat]

Alcohol laws are an oddity. Always have been, and while I couldn't agree more with Puma about the hypocrisy of both sides wanting government to regulate whatever they don't like and be hands off on things they do, alcohol has been one of those things that seems very local and has always been regulated heavily.

I've always loved the irony of kentucky being world famous for making liquor, and a big chunk of the state can't buy liquor. huh?

We had to vote in a church here in Radcliff That resulted in the South side of town going wet before the North. The two could nearly throw rocks at each other.

[kingcat]

On the abortion issue. The Church has taken a hard stance against all abortion and are among the staunchest of Pro Life supporters. I believe they would do better to take an equal hard line stance against sex outside of marriage.
If the same effort were put into that, abortions would have decreased much more than they have due to the pro life stance.
They should even go so far as to throw their support towards criminalizing it.
That would accomplish the same thing and decrease sin two fold. Both in abortions and the sinful act itself.

And I am being serious. If legislation is cultivated in the pulpit, let it be according to the Word and not political persuasion.


I would advise against showing films of the act in Church however.

[CitizenBBN]

We had to vote in a church here in Radcliff That resulted in the South side of town going wet before the North. The two could nearly throw rocks at each other.

lol. Makes the North South Softball game kinda rough I bet. lotta bean balls....

That really did make me laugh out loud. Thanks, I enjoyed the way you put that a lot.

Alcohol has a long and proud history as probably this country's most divisive vice. Prostitution has always been frowned upon, but alcohol has been simultaneously praised (if not worshiped) and derided literally as the devil.

It's both angel and devil in a way, the stuff of nostalgia interwoven in our lore and also the source of outrage so strong it spawned Prohibition.

[ukpumacat]

lol. Makes the North South Softball game kinda rough I bet. lotta bean balls....

That really did make me laugh out loud. Thanks, I enjoyed the way you put that a lot.

Alcohol has a long and proud history as probably this country's most divisive vice. Prostitution has always been frowned upon, but alcohol has been simultaneously praised (if not worshiped) and derided literally as the devil.

It's both angel and devil in a way, the stuff of nostalgia interwoven in our lore and also the source of outrage so strong it spawned Prohibition.

I'm a fan of alcohol.
Its the one common bond that could get all of us (conservative, moderate, libertarian, liberal, green) to sit around a table and get along. That and UK.

[Catonahottinroof]

And good food

I'm a fan of alcohol.
Its the one common bond that could get all of us (conservative, moderate, libertarian, liberal, green) to sit around a table and get along. That and UK.

[CitizenBBN]

And good food

Or enough booze you think it's good.

I frequent Sloppy Joes in Key west, among many other places there. Had someone ask me once how the food was as they are supposedly the origin of the "Sloppy Joe" sandwich and meat sauce.

I said at 1pm they're OK at best, but by 11pm it's the best food on the planet, and they don't change cooks. Somehow greasy bar food just tastes better the more you drink.

[ukpumacat]

Ha. It really does.

Jack in the Box tacos are a staple on the west coast to fight a hangover.

They are genuinely disgusting.

And yet, when you are drinking or hungover....I can’t quite explain how divine they are.

[kingcat]

I love SJ ‘s fish n chips

[KSRBEvans]

If the Supremes overruled Roe tomorrow, it wouldn't ban abortion. It would just return the matter to the individual states, which could choose to permit it (and the circumstances under which it would be permitted), or not permit it.

The people holding up the "DON'T OUTLAW ABORTION" signs either don't understand the law or they're trying to mislead people.

[CitizenBBN]

The people holding up the "DON'T OUTLAW ABORTION" signs either don't understand the law or they're trying to mislead people.

Both.

I actually get the concern over the issue, it's very divisive and pretty evenly split in the country, but the reality is that Kavanaugh is about the most moderate choice Trump could have made, and the frustration isn't over him but over the fact that a relative conservative won the election and got to make these two picks versus a liberal President.

This is why a big chunk of Trump voters held their nose and voted for him, b/c they knew there was one pick to make, and maybe two, and if he wins re-election maybe even 3. Elections have consequences, and the court will be more conservative if Trump (or any Republican) is in office this term, and possibly next.

Personally I doubt Roe is on the table. Things may get curtailed some here and there, but I doubt anyone on the bench is dying to step to their necks in that controversy. The Court has survived 2 centuries by being prudent, including prudent in which cases it even hears and how far they move the needle. Technically they have no grant of the power they wield, so they must preserve their clout, and they know their role is to keep things from swinging too wildly.

That's why on the 2nd Amendment after Heller and McDonald they have declined to hear other test cases that would further push the envelope on the 2nd Amendment, esp. cases testing whether states can deny carry permits and their various "needs based" tests. Other circuits have ruled but SCOTUS has delayed, giving time for things to settle down and keep from moving too far too fast.

That's how SCOTUS has always worked with just a few rare exceptions. Frankly the gay marriage decision is probably one of the bigger steps they've taken in the last 10 or 20 years or more, but again they read the room and it's likely they never make that ruling 20 years ago. They balance the law with the mood of the nation as much as just interpreting the law blindly.

They will maybe rule on aspects of it, but I doubt they throw it out. They also don't like overturning their previous decisions in such big swings.

But it's very likely another conservative will sit on the Bench, and that's just how the system works. Obama said elections have consequences, and yes they do. If Democrats want to be mad they should be mad at their party for running a candidate who is the ultimate insider, is completely insulated with institutional incest and yes men, and has the personal appeal of a porcupine, even against a candidate as damaged as Trump.

[ukpumacat]

Both.

Kavanaugh is about the most moderate choice Trump could have made, and the frustration isn't over him but over the fact that a relative conservative won the election and got to make these two picks versus a liberal President.

I agree I doubt Roe is actually on the table. I frankly doubt Trump cares about that one way or the other.

But just one comment on your quote above.

I think much of the frustration isn't just over Trump winning (certainly some of that) but there is great frustration on the Democratic side over the fact that Republicans refused to consider Garland's nomination in 2016. Now that we are a couple of years into the Trump admin, the pot is beginning to boil over and we are seeing it on display. Ultimately, I am guessing they appoint him.
But Dems are starting to get their groove back and are using the negative news on Trump lately and taking it out on Kavanaugh.

The same way people on the right are calling all of this a "circus" and "never seen before"...people on the left said the exact same things in 2016.

[CitizenBBN]

I agree I doubt Roe is actually on the table. I frankly doubt Trump cares about that one way or the other.

But just one comment on your quote above.

I think much of the frustration isn't just over Trump winning (certainly some of that) but there is great frustration on the Democratic side over the fact that Republicans refused to consider Garland's nomination in 2016. Now that we are a couple of years into the Trump admin, the pot is beginning to boil over and we are seeing it on display. Ultimately, I am guessing they appoint him.
But Dems are starting to get their groove back and are using the negative news on Trump lately and taking it out on Kavanaugh.

The same way people on the right are calling all of this a "circus" and "never seen before"...people on the left said the exact same things in 2016.

There was no circus in 2016, there was nothing, and that's why they were mad.

But it wasn't some absurd move. in fact Chuck Schumer called for EXACTLY the same thing when the Democrats were in charge at the end of Bush II's reign. It's on tape with him on the Senate floor saying that's what they should do even though there wasn't even a vacancy.

That's just good use of procedure, and it happens all the time. Democrats and the GOP slow walk judicial appointments and have done so forever. that's not even news.

what's interesting here IMO is it is becoming increasingly extreme. GOP slow walking was tougher under Obama, leading to the change in Senate rules, and Dems now out of power have upped that bar again. They've both done it, but the edges are fraying pretty deep into the tapestry these days.

What we're seeing in session this week is just people posturing for their base and launching Presidential campaigns. Booker today compared himself to Spartacus in releasing emails that were CLEARED yesterday evening at HIS request, and he was informed they were cleared. But it makes a better show to act like he's standing up to The Man in some way, despite the fact that it was a complete lie.

That's the nonsense of politics that both sides practice that has the American people a) ready to vote them all out, or b) increasingly radicalized, or both.

[ukpumacat]

No doubt its all getting worse.