Talk of The Villages Florida

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   Current Events and News (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/current-events-news-541/)
-   -   Egregiously wrong from the start (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/current-events-news-541/egregiously-wrong-start-331701/)

JMintzer 05-05-2022 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2092575)
Agreed about the NATIONAL referendum. This and many more issues should be decided by a national referendum. And I would like a 100% mandatory vote every 2 years. The US is SO important to the world that we should do our best to get our elections RIGHT. Something that we have not gotten right in the past!

"Mandatory vote???" :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Not voting is just as much of a right as voting...

jimjamuser 05-05-2022 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taurus510 (Post 2092144)
You would be correct. IF the vaccine worked. Now that it is a fact that the vaccines don’t work it is a starter. ( I kinda like being able to declare that an argument is a starter or a non starter. Kinda gives me a God like authority…)

Covid vaccines work! Only in the dark web of disinformation do they not work! Disinformation started in Russia to split apart Americans. NOt very patriotic!

JMintzer 05-05-2022 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2092579)
Covid vaccines work! Only in the dark web of disinformation do they not work! Disinformation started in Russia to split apart Americans. NOt very patriotic!

Not the way they were advertised, they don't...

And questioning authority is one of the most American things you can do...

jimjamuser 05-05-2022 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taurus510 (Post 2092148)
We’ll, you see, here’s the thing. Not only are many of my co-workers hospital workers, I too am a hospital worker. And yes, I am involved in patient medical care, so do you have any other suggestions?
EDIT: In the interest of transparency, I am retired. I should’ve said that I worked in the hospital. Retired at the end of last year. But, still I will await further instructions.

Further instructions........please avoid the dark web at all costs. Use traditional sources like mainstream TV NEWS.

jimjamuser 05-05-2022 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2092136)
According to one prolific poster, we have too many people so yes, it is...

I feel so PROLIFIC, so pretty, so witty, and so wise. They can put PROLIFIC on my tombstone.

jimjamuser 05-05-2022 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biker1 (Post 2092151)
My preference would be that the states enact their own laws. This way if you don't agree with the law you can move to another state. Such freedoms don't exist with Federal Law unless you want to leave the country. The SC is doing their job by ruling on Roe.

That means that we MUST change our country's name to .....The Divided States of America!

jimjamuser 05-05-2022 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noslices1 (Post 2092286)
Just putting the decision back in the hands of the States. Nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion. Anything NOT in the Constitution should be decided by each State.

Not necessarily the right default position. And the Constitution is an OLD document written for an EARLIER time period. Time changes and laws change,

Blackbird45 05-05-2022 12:48 PM

I don't know about the rest of you, but I believe if one of these anti-abortion politician's daughters was raped and she did not want the baby, there would be a plane waiting on the tarmac to take her to an undisclosed destination. How many times have we seen this show. You do remember Larry Craig a true anti gay senator who was arrested trying to pick up another man in an airport men's room

jimjamuser 05-05-2022 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2092385)
Murder is a state crime with a few exceptions, such as when the murder takes place on federal land, it is a federal judge who is murdered, or when the suspect is apprehended fleeing to another state.

Drug use is largely a state decision. States are allowing increased marijuana use such as for medical reasons, and in some cases even recreational use (ten states plus Washington DC have approved it for recreational use). The feds get involved in cases of interstate drug commerce or when other federal laws are broken in the process. The War on Drugs and the creation of the DEA were implemented for this reason, not so much to curb usage but commerce in drugs.

Illegal immigration? There again the feds get involved (though not nearly so much as they could) when federal law is broken. Strictly speaking every illegal alien has already broken federal law when they cross the border. States get involved when the illegals break STATE laws, though there is an increasing effort by states to control what in large part the federal government decides not to enforce.

The Constitution, per the Tenth Amendment, is clear on this: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." We were birthed as a country with strong STATE'S rights. I think the trend may go back that way.

"or to the people" That means that we all should vote on this matter by referendum. And have 100% mandated voting every 2 years!

jimjamuser 05-05-2022 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2092418)
I'd rather see the government get OUT of the business between a woman and her physician. Abortions shouldn't be legal or illegal. They should be treated no differently than the laws involving getting a tooth removed, a mastectomy in a woman with breast cancer, a hysterectomy in a woman with uterine cancer, or a broken bone repaired. It is a medical procedure and should be given the same legislative treatment as any other medical procedure.

Agreed

Cybersprings 05-05-2022 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlieo1126@gmail.com (Post 2092033)
Can’t wait to see how many men on here will be discussing what a woman should or not do with her own body

And how exactly would we know if they are men? Are you going to assume by name and or photo? Hypothetically, if someone has xy chromosomes but identify as a woman, is she allowed to have an opinion?

jimjamuser 05-05-2022 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2092503)
And just to be clear...

I do abhor the concept of abortion... BUT... I understand the NEED to have it be safe and legal WITH certain restrictions...

Hearing people calling to make it legal up until the time of birth is insane (to me).

Also, making it illegal after 6 weeks is just as insane, since it is VERY possible that a woman may not even know she's pregnant at that point...

Unfortunately, there is no consensus as to when (or even if) it should be allowed... Soooo we'll keep going round and round, yelling at each other, getting nowhere...

https://c.tenor.com/xbOoUfZ8-KAAAAAC/oh-well-elmo.gif

After the Supreme Court decision, abortions will continue. They will just be done UNSAFELY in backstreet hideaways.

jimjamuser 05-05-2022 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Love2Swim (Post 2092513)
This is forced birth extremism that treats women not as persons with basic human rights and feelings, but simply as incubators. And let's not forget this is not the end of things. These conservative groups are going to go as far as they can - push against certain types of contraception; sexual intercourse only legal within the bounds of marriage or for the purpose of procreation leaving marriage rights at risk. The only way this has even come to pass is that conservative Supreme court nominees lied in interviews and at their confirmation hearings. Make no mistake, there are no ethics involved here, its all politics as usual.

True

Cybersprings 05-05-2022 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackbird45 (Post 2092589)
I don't know about the rest of you, but I believe if one of these anti-abortion politician's daughters was raped and she did not want the baby, there would be a plane waiting on the tarmac to take her to an undisclosed destination. How many times have we seen this show. You do remember Larry Craig a true anti gay senator who was arrested trying to pick up another man in an airport men's room

Agreed that would be complete hypocrisy. I am curious, do you think we should decide what is right or wrong based upon what any politician would do?

Two Bills 05-05-2022 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2092537)
There is not one argument presented here that hasn't been presented already in a million different places, in a million different forms, a million different times. Agreement is impossible.

My take is a little different. I oppose abortion except in cases where the choice is either - or: either the fetus is aborted or the mother dies. There are very few absolutes in the world any more but I strongly feel that the respect for, and protection of, innocent life is one of those absolutes. If it is not, then EVERYTHING related to life becomes relative and the only thing that matters is how high (or low) we set the bar.

But it is not abortion that is the greater evil. It is, rather, the mindset that allows it.

We would do well to look at history. As a matter of practicality, it is always easier to get rid of something, or someone (or a lot of someones) if we first define it/they as somehow less than human. Easier on the conscience, I suppose. We could look back The process is always the same. First, identify the discrete group whose existence is somehow threatening, dangerous, or just plain in the way. Second, define that group as somehow less than human.

Third, exterminate them.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had his Armenians. Stalin had his Ukrainians. Uncle Adolph and his merry brand of brownshirt thugs had his Jews, Romani, mental defectives, etc. Pol Pot had his intellectuals. Slobodan Milosevec had his Bosniaks. And so on. The faces may change. But the PROCESS, except in the method chosen for the extermination, never does.

In 2022 America, the identified untermenschen are the unborn.

Think about it.

But abortion has been around forever, and nothing to do with stereotyping by race or social standing.
In fact, it is a very equal opportunity procedure. Open to all of the required gender!

jimjamuser 05-05-2022 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvbound (Post 2092543)
Exactly. What's next, some state's deciding that they're fine with "separate but equal" (not covered in original COTUS/BOR), and hard-earned equality for minorities - is now left up to individual states? A whole lot of racists/bigots/white supremacists, are licking their chops thinking about this huge slippery slope.

True

Cybersprings 05-05-2022 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2092588)
Not necessarily the right default position. And the Constitution is an OLD document written for an EARLIER time period. Time changes and laws change,

Are you suggesting we should ignore the constitution, since it is outdated?

Cybersprings 05-05-2022 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Two Bills (Post 2092600)
But abortion has been around forever, and nothing to do with stereotyping by race or social standing.
In fact, it is a very equal opportunity procedure. Open to all of the required gender!

Rape and murder have also been around forever. Should they therefore be legal? Abortion has not been LEGAL forever, only the last 50 years.

jimjamuser 05-05-2022 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2092574)
RGB stated the Roe V Wade was a poor decision and Garland has shown himself to be a lousy AG. What makes you think he would have been a good SC Justice?

And your 75% number is a red herring... That number is not "abortion on demand", it is abortion with set limitations, which is what we have in every State right now.

That said, there is (and should be) debate as to what those limitations should be...

The point about AG Garland is NOT whether he would have made a good or bad supreme court Justice - the point is that he was CHEATED out of the opportunity.

jimjamuser 05-05-2022 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2092602)
Are you suggesting we should ignore the constitution, since it is outdated?

Keep the good, throw away the bad!

Cybersprings 05-05-2022 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2092544)
I agree with this post. We have a situation here where less than 25% of the country is telling the 75% of the country how they SHOULD LIVE. that does NOT sound like a free country to me. America says that problem with Russia and China is that the FEW are controlling the MANY. Yet America seems to be acting like Russia and China. America is going to be CONTROLLED detrimentally by the LUCK of a death of a Supreme court member (RBG) and a PATHETIC stalling of the chance to put a highly qualified person on the court (Merrick Garland) during the Obama administration.
.......So, how could we stop disasters like this (rule by less than 25%)? I would suggest the use of term limits for, in this case the members of the Supreme Court (lifetime RULE is crazy stupid). I would suggest something like 8 years for Supreme Court Justices (anywhere between 6 and 12 years would be an improvement over a lifetime term.
.........And, of course, I feel the same that Senators and the House should have 2 terms maximum.
..........Why limit the President to 2 terms (which is a good idea) and NOT have limits on Congress. Most all of the out-and-out HATRED of WASHINGTON develops as politicians FIGHT to make their job a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT. Term limits would significantly stop the corruption and lack of cooperation that has become synonymous with WAHINGTON!

It's so hard to agree with this when the very premise is not true.
1. 75% of the population cannot have babies, therefore the percent of people being "controlled" could not possibly be 75%. We won't even go into the fact that many women (don't know the percentage) are pro-life. Therefore the number being controlled couldn't possibly be 50%. Then females who have gone through menopause or are pre-adolescent or infertile. You see how the "controlled" is far less than 50%.
2 Your statement that only25% are pro-life is not even close to accurate. So, once you release the "facts" you offer to support your position are "misinformation", it is much harder to provide the desired weight to the argument.

jimbomaybe 05-05-2022 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2092602)
Are you suggesting we should ignore the constitution, since it is outdated?

Only when the possibility that something will happen that we don't agree with

Cybersprings 05-05-2022 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2092608)
Keep the good, throw away the bad!

Are you going to be the person that determines what is good and what is bad? Or who do you suggest should do that? I am assuming you know how the constitution is amended to keep the good and throw away the bad. But then again, it is the constitution that states how to amend it. Is that part of the good or the bad?

Two Bills 05-05-2022 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2092604)
Rape and murder have also been around forever. Should they therefore be legal? Abortion has not been LEGAL forever, only the last 50 years.

Did you actually bother to read my post, or to what I was replying?
No mention of legality.

Stu from NYC 05-05-2022 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2092586)
That means that we MUST change our country's name to .....The Divided States of America!

Perhaps you do not know that states can make their own laws since we became a nation. Not to mention some states have state income taxes and some do not.

You might want to change your post.

ScottGo 05-05-2022 01:42 PM

I remember a neighbor dying from a coat hanger procedure back in the good ole 60s. Guess we're going backward.

Stu from NYC 05-05-2022 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2092594)
And how exactly would we know if they are men? Are you going to assume by name and or photo? Hypothetically, if someone has xy chromosomes but identify as a woman, is she allowed to have an opinion?

And to think the newest member of the SC cannot figure out who is males and who is female.

Stu from NYC 05-05-2022 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2092596)
After the Supreme Court decision, abortions will continue. They will just be done UNSAFELY in backstreet hideaways.

Actually you are mostly wrong.

Many states will now pass laws allowing abortions so people who want them can just take a ride to one of those states and have her abortion.

MDLNB 05-05-2022 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2092328)
Does the pregnant woman get to include her fetus as a dependent on her income tax? Does she get child-care credit? Is she charged for one adult and one child ticket when she goes to the movies?

In other words - is that fetus treated like a human in ALL OTHER circumstances, while it's in the womb? No? Then why is it treated like a human when it comes to the female's decision on whether or not it exists?


You're kidding, right?

MDLNB 05-05-2022 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2092586)
That means that we MUST change our country's name to .....The Divided States of America!


We ARE divided by state lines. We are individual states, given the Constitutional right to make laws that can be enforced in our individual states. If you wish to call it "divided" so be it. Thank goodness for diversity, huh?

RVJim 05-05-2022 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC (Post 2092624)
Actually you are mostly wrong.

Many states will now pass laws allowing abortions so people who want them can just take a ride to one of those states and have her abortion.

Not so easy for every one to travel to another state or country. The wealthy will continue to travel to other states or Canada to obtain the services they desire BUT the poor, uneducated and unsupported will not. This is just another one of many disadvantages that will drive the gulf between the haves and have-nots. The wealthy will always find a way.

I grew up in a very wealthy family. I remember my father saying on many occasions that he really didn't care too much what happened with regard to politics or legislation because he could always buy himself and his family out of any situation that we might find ourselves in. Although he said that many decades ago I think that mindset is very much true today.

MDLNB 05-05-2022 02:06 PM

It seems that there are a lot of folks that feel the gov MUST mandate their view and that individual states should not have the right to decide for themselves. This decision would give back the states' Constitutional right under the 10th Amendment. Certain states will continue to allow or regulate abortions and other states will ban abortions or also regulate strictly. Why some insist on mandating for ALL states just because they feel a certain way, is not being very liberal. The decision by the SC will not make abortions illegal. The decision will not limit states from banning abortions. It only means that it finds Roe being flawed and may decide to throw it back in the states purview. The SC is not going to ban abortions, period.
Just a bunch of hysteria over a nothing burger.

Cybersprings 05-05-2022 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Two Bills (Post 2092614)
Did you actually bother to read my post, or to what I was replying?
No mention of legality.

Yes I did. But after your reply to me, I went back and studied both again.
I guess now I get that you were trying to say was that abortion is not always (or maybe even rarely) about "extermination" of anything more than one human at a time, not a race or other group of people".

MDLNB 05-05-2022 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottGo (Post 2092621)
I remember a neighbor dying from a coat hanger procedure back in the good ole 60s. Guess we're going backward.


How on earth do you come away from this with an idea such as that? Do they use coat hangers to perform abortions today? I do not know of any car that won't make it to the state line on a tank of gasoline. If one state bans abortions, then go to another.

Cybersprings 05-05-2022 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottGo (Post 2092621)
I remember a neighbor dying from a coat hanger procedure back in the good ole 60s. Guess we're going backward.

So, the argument is: even if illegal, people will still do it, and may get hurt, possibly even die. Therefore we should legalize it?
However, many people who commit crimes are hurt or killed during the commission of the crime, should we therefore legalize armed robbery, and other crimes if someone has ever been killed while committing the crime?

fdpaq0580 05-05-2022 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDLNB (Post 2092640)
How on earth do you come away from this with an idea such as that? Do they use coat hangers to perform abortions today? I do not know of any car that won't make it to the state line on a tank of gasoline. If one state bans abortions, then go to another.

And, when is the last time you actually saw a wire coat hanger?
😒

Taurus510 05-05-2022 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2092579)
Covid vaccines work! Only in the dark web of disinformation do they not work! Disinformation started in Russia to split apart Americans. NOt very patriotic!

Sure the vaccines work. That’s why the nerd prom in D.C. turned out to be a “super spreader” event. Everyone in attendance had to be vaccinated and have a negative test, and yet, so many who attended are getting the Rona. These vaccines work about as good as a 1985 Yugo barn find.

Taurus510 05-05-2022 02:56 PM

Man, we went from “everyone must be jabbed” to “my body, my choice” at light speed.

Caymus 05-05-2022 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taurus510 (Post 2092647)
Sure the vaccines work. That’s why the nerd prom in D.C. turned out to be a “super spreader” event. Everyone in attendance had to be vaccinated and have a negative test, and yet, so many who attended are getting the Rona. These vaccines work about as good as a 1985 Yugo barn find.

What I found amusing was that Fauci skipped the event.

Taurus510 05-05-2022 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caymus (Post 2092649)
What I found amusing was that Fauci skipped the event.

Fauci didn’t go because he knew the jab doesn’t work.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.