Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Chilichimp
Oct 24, 2006

TIE Adv xWampa

It wamp, and it stomp

Grimey Drawer

Doctor Butts posted:

I dunno, just IMO, but calling it an 'unborn child' is like me calling myself a 'poor millionaire'

Given the flow of time, one of those two things is going to come about.

Keep at it man, you're almost there.

PS. Loan me some money when you make it.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Keeshhound
Jan 14, 2010

Mad Duck Swagger

Chilichimp posted:

*roots around in the Amicus brief for sections of respondent argument noting "rights of the child"*

*Finds nothing*

I think you just proved the petitioners complaint.

I want to see a state make it legal for a man stop an abortion by signing a legally binding agreement to adopt the child and raise them to adulthood.

It'd be a horrible law that violates the rights of the mother, and it's ensuing rejection by the courts would be immediate and deserved, but I want to see assholes like Walsh have to defend why they're unwilling to save the life of even one unborn without admitting that they see children as God's punishment of women.

seiferguy
Jun 9, 2005

FLAWED
INTUITION



Toilet Rascal
Wasn't porn regulation attempted in California when they tried to force all male actors to wear condoms in shots?

fade5
May 31, 2012

by exmarx
Lol, Matt might want to take a closer look at who's agreeing with him:
https://twitter.com/yawmal_dabiq/status/746433871302955008
https://twitter.com/yawmal_dabiq/status/746438908129456128
https://twitter.com/yawmal_dabiq/status/746743120642072576
https://twitter.com/yawmal_dabiq/status/747274452782616576
Why I do believe this twitter person who Matt Walsh is conversing with is a Muslim.:monocle:

The "dabiq" in his twitter handle was what clued me in, if you're curious.

DACK FAYDEN
Feb 25, 2013

Bear Witness

fade5 posted:

https://twitter.com/yawmal_dabiq/status/747274452782616576
Why I do believe this twitter person who Matt Walsh is conversing with is a Muslim.:monocle:
Impeach Nomad's Clock

Not just treason but high treason!

Ivan Shitskin
Nov 29, 2002

Does Matt Walsh have sex through a hole in a sheet? Just asking questions

Magres
Jul 14, 2011
The RWM losing its loving mind over the Texas case is beautiful

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.
I know its been said before but I can never understand why conservatives wrap themselves up so much in concern for the unborn when they don't a drat about children once they are born

DACK FAYDEN
Feb 25, 2013

Bear Witness
Facebook claims that #TrumpGirlsBreakTheInternet is trending.

...that's a lovely hashtag for at least two reasons.

Why is the hivemind so bad at social media?

Chilichimp
Oct 24, 2006

TIE Adv xWampa

It wamp, and it stomp

Grimey Drawer

Mel Mudkiper posted:

I know its been said before but I can never understand why conservatives wrap themselves up so much in concern for the unborn when they don't a drat about children once they are born

Given conservative opinions on "welfare queens" and abortion statistics among blacks; black women can't loving win.

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

DACK FAYDEN posted:

Facebook claims that #TrumpGirlsBreakTheInternet is trending.

...that's a lovely hashtag for at least two reasons.

Why is the hivemind so bad at social media?

I checked it out the other day. About half of the tweets are sarcastic.

The other half, well, I imagine pictures of women in bikinis holding Trump signs will do wonders for the woman vote

Mr Interweb
Aug 25, 2004

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4sULDNpvqs

Cenk Uygur "debated" Dinesh D'Souza at Politcon.

I really, really dislike D'Souza. The guy is an incredibly disingenuous, oleaginous hack. Every time he's arguing with some liberal, he always, always ALWAYS brings up the whole "well, if right-wingers are racist, why was Abraham Lincoln a Republican? :smug:" I mean, yeah, he's hardly the first conservative to make that inane argument, but he's among the most obnoxious. And the cajones on this sonnuva biscuit when he tries to attack Cenk for supposedly being disingenuous and presenting information without context.

edit: I should mention that the video is worth watching just for the part where Cenk calls D'Souza out on his stint in prison while attacking Hillary as being corrupt. And then seeing his absolute horseshit excuse for why he didn't do anything wrong. :lol:

Mr Interweb fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Jun 27, 2016

Chilichimp
Oct 24, 2006

TIE Adv xWampa

It wamp, and it stomp

Grimey Drawer
So this is floating around:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/06/27/26-democrats-who-participated-gun-control-sit-own-guns

I guess the implication of this article is that owning guns while wanting more gun control makes you a hypocrite?

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

seiferguy posted:

Wasn't porn regulation attempted in California when they tried to force all male actors to wear condoms in shots?

yeah - los angeles county requires condoms so the porn industry moved, if statewide condom laws pass the industry will move to las vegas

the condom law is bad because condoms actually cause more damage then they prevent when you have sex for 3+ hours, like you do when filming porn

Assepoester
Jul 18, 2004
Probation
Can't post for 10 years!
Melman v2

Mr Interweb posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4sULDNpvqs

Cenk Uygur "debated" Dinesh D'Souza at Politcon.

I really, really dislike D'Souza. The guy is an incredibly disingenuous, oleaginous hack. Every time he's arguing with some liberal, he always, always ALWAYS brings up the whole "well, if right-wingers are racist, why was Abraham Lincoln a Republican? :smug:"
http://nypost.com/2016/06/23/free-state-of-jones-has-an-unexpected-take-on-the-civil-war/

Far be it from me to read political meanings into a Civil War movie, but “Free State of Jones” is enticingly difficult to chart. It’s anti-war, anti-plutocracy and anti-racist, but it’s also pro-Bible, pro-gun, anti-tax and sympathetic to the poor whites who usually get tagged as racist. Its hero is an avowed Republican named Newt.

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Chilichimp posted:

So this is floating around:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/06/27/26-democrats-who-participated-gun-control-sit-own-guns

I guess the implication of this article is that owning guns while wanting more gun control makes you a hypocrite?

Not really surprising when the entire doctrine of the pro gun right is that any form of gun control is just an attempt to ban all guns for the one world government

Crabtree
Oct 17, 2012

ARRRGH! Get that wallet out!
Everybody: Lowtax in a Pickle!
Pickle! Pickle! Pickle! Pickle!

Dinosaur Gum

Matt Walsh, I swear to you and to my dark Mistress, the Queen of Mean and the Empress of Death herself, I shall become President of this here united states and when my ascension comes about, you will have poisoned this nation so much that even my ironic cry of HAIL SATAN in front of the public and all of fox new's hungry sound bite cameras will not stop my vile coronation to the throne of Commander in Chief. No, Mr. Walsh, they will only cheer louder as Irony will carry me to victory and everything you hold dear will weep blood as the sun is swallowed by her empty womb and the endless night shall begin at last!

SHE WILL WEAR THE FLESH OF ALL THE LOST CHILDREN SHE HAS DEVOURED AND SHE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL SHE HAS CONSUMED ALL LIFE!

WampaLord
Jan 14, 2010

Popular Thug Drink posted:

the condom law is bad because condoms actually cause more damage then they prevent when you have sex for 3+ hours, like you do when filming porn

I would imagine one could simply change out the condom for a fresh one during a cut? There's no way they're having sex for 3+ hours without interruptions, right?

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

WampaLord posted:

I would imagine one could simply change out the condom for a fresh one during a cut? There's no way they're having sex for 3+ hours without interruptions, right?

condom use causes abrasions over an extended period of time, which is fine because most people only have sex for like 5-15 minutes and not many hours. you'd certainly have to go through multiple condoms but if the condom keeps breaking imagine what it's doing to genital tissues. plus filming porn is difficult enough from a male perspective, the goon pornographer basically said that one of the toughest parts of filming is getting a guy who can show up on time, sober, and stay erect through the entire shoot because thousands of dollars are at stake if the dude loses his boner - condoms are a financial risk as well as uncomfortable

Phone
Jul 30, 2005

親子丼をほしい。

WampaLord posted:

I would imagine one could simply change out the condom for a fresh one during a cut? There's no way they're having sex for 3+ hours without interruptions, right?

Uh... one weird trick?

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

WampaLord posted:

I would imagine one could simply change out the condom for a fresh one during a cut? There's no way they're having sex for 3+ hours without interruptions, right?

Avant garde porn actor wears different colored condom every take to create a surreal and incongruous experience

Doctor Butts
May 21, 2002

Popular Thug Drink posted:

condom use causes abrasions over an extended period of time, which is fine because most people only have sex for like 5-15 minutes and not many hours. you'd certainly have to go through multiple condoms but if the condom keeps breaking imagine what it's doing to genital tissues. plus filming porn is difficult enough from a male perspective, the goon pornographer basically said that one of the toughest parts of filming is getting a guy who can show up on time, sober, and stay erect through the entire shoot because thousands of dollars are at stake if the dude loses his boner - condoms are a financial risk as well as uncomfortable

Condom or not, you have sex for 3 hours, she's gonna be sore and hurting.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011
It's kind of weird that condom brands don't already go heavy on product placement in porn

WampaLord
Jan 14, 2010

Popular Thug Drink posted:

condom use causes abrasions over an extended period of time, which is fine because most people only have sex for like 5-15 minutes and not many hours. you'd certainly have to go through multiple condoms but if the condom keeps breaking imagine what it's doing to genital tissues. plus filming porn is difficult enough from a male perspective, the goon pornographer basically said that one of the toughest parts of filming is getting a guy who can show up on time, sober, and stay erect through the entire shoot because thousands of dollars are at stake if the dude loses his boner - condoms are a financial risk as well as uncomfortable

None of this makes the lack of condom a better option. Going without a condom has all of these downsides plus an increased risk of STDs.

Doctor Butts posted:

Condom or not, you have sex for 3 hours, she's gonna be sore and hurting.

Exactly.

Mr Interweb
Aug 25, 2004

Cardboard Box A posted:

http://nypost.com/2016/06/23/free-state-of-jones-has-an-unexpected-take-on-the-civil-war/

Far be it from me to read political meanings into a Civil War movie, but “Free State of Jones” is enticingly difficult to chart. It’s anti-war, anti-plutocracy and anti-racist, but it’s also pro-Bible, pro-gun, anti-tax and sympathetic to the poor whites who usually get tagged as racist. Its hero is an avowed Republican named Newt.

He actually uses the term "anti-racist" as a negative. But hey, party of Lincoln, etc.

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

WampaLord posted:

None of this makes the lack of condom a better option. Going without a condom has all of these downsides plus an increased risk of STDs.

not really, the industry self regulates because it's in every performer's interest to remain STD free - regular mandatory testing and professional standards handle the situation pretty well. the industry even keeps a database of test results. and the law simply isn't going to be effective, because if it passes the production companies will just move somewhere else

Mr Ice Cream Glove
Apr 22, 2007

I was waiting for this

Texas, Ignore The Supreme Court And Enforce Your Abortion Laws Anyway

quote:

Today, the High Priests of the Supreme Court waved their royal scepters and summarily abolished a reasonable and necessary law passed by the elected representatives of the people of Texas.

After conducting a seance to discuss the matter with the writers of the Fourteenth Amendment, it confirmed that those men meant to protect the God-given, inalienable right of women to procure abortions at unregulated clinics. They just forgot to put that part in there.

Not only do women have a right to execute their children, it turns out, but the right is so sacrosanct that they must not be forced to drive for 45 minutes to obtain one. In other words, women have a right to kill their kids conveniently. I assume it will only be a matter of time before you can order an abortion with a side of fries while you’re in the drive-thru line at Wendy’s. And that, too, will be a “right” embedded in the Constitution, according to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and friends.

Predictably, the overturning of the Texas abortion regulations sent leftists across the country into fits of demonic jubilation. Watching the sickening celebration unfold, I half expected to see them erect a temple to Moloch and start sacrificing children right there on the steps of the Supreme Court. But that was a silly thought. It was only the ancient pagans who sought divine favor by throwing their babies into the fire and watching them burn to death. Our modern pagans are more capitalistic. They know the child’s organs are far too valuable to be tossed in the flames. Why incinerate a perfectly good liver if it can fetch 100 dollars on the black market?

Anyway, I certainly can’t say I’m shocked by the Court’s decision. With Justice Antonin Scalia gone, it would have required the Court’s “moderate,” Justice Kennedy, to keep the Texas law in place. But as we’ve seen, there is no distinction between a leftist and a moderate anymore. When it comes to the pivotal cultural issues, the mainstream position and the radical left-wing position are identical. You might say there is no radical left-wing at this point. Or maybe it’s more accurate to say there is no middle. Either way, in the end there’s only the culture and the counter-culture. Anyone who affirms the humanity of the unborn is a member of the counter-culture. Anyone who refuses to affirm it is a member of the collective, passively floating further and further into the moral abyss.

Now, a few other points about today’s ruling:

1. Texas should ignore the Supreme Court.

The time for civil disobedience is now. On Tenth Amendment grounds, on the grounds of justice, on the grounds of human decency, on the grounds of saving lives, on the grounds of truth, of morality, of righteousness, Texas should tell the Court to go to Hell. In those words, preferably. The governor should come out tonight and declare his intention to enforce the state’s law regardless.

There isn’t even a pretense of constitutional interpretation anymore. Justices Thomas and Alito said themselves that the Court is operating by fiat, conjuring decisions out of thin air based entirely on the political preferences of the majority. But we are not actually living in a judicial dictatorship, despite how it seems. The Supreme Court is empowered to read the Constitution, not to unilaterally rewrite it. Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor don’t have the authority to tell Texas, “Get rid of that law because we five liberals find it personally objectionable.”

When will someone stand up to them, for God’s sake? Conservatives all agree that they’re acting outside the law and have been for some time. We agree that they’re rogue tyrants imposing their perverse will on the country. We agree they have no actual legal authority to pass down royal decrees. What, then, are we going to do about it?

Tyrants only have power if you submit to them. Why, then, do we keep submitting? It’s about time that someone calls their bluff. We knew it would come to this, didn’t we? We knew that eventually some state would have to stand up and say, “Oh yeah? Make me.” If now is not that time, with lives very much at stake, then the time will never come.

The federal government has put abortion clinics above the law. Not only above the law of Texas, but above the law of God. Nobody is entitled to that position. But they will continue to claim it until someone knocks them down and restores legal and moral order to this godless nation.

And if worse comes to worse, Texas should take a look across the pond and perhaps take a cue from recent events. If protecting an abortionist’s right to kill children is a non-negotiable condition of membership in our Union, then maybe Texas should cancel its membership. The Old America was built upon liberty and Natural Law. The New America is built upon the dead bodies of our murdered children. To secede from such a country could be a heroic and virtuous act.

And if things do go that way, my only request of Texas is that it let a friendly blogger from the north immigrate there, along with his growing family. But if they turn me away, I promise I won’t hop the fence.

2. Media outlets will say that the Supreme Court struck down an “anti-abortion law” in Texas, but that makes as much sense as saying its regulations on dentists are “anti-dental” or that its laws governing podiatrists are “anti-podiatry.”

It might be true that many of the lawmakers in Texas would prefer to shut down every abortion clinic, but nevertheless that’s not what the law said. The law simply required that abortion clinics meet many of the same regulatory standards other medical facilities are forced to meet. If that would have the effect of closing half the clinics in the state, that says more about the clinics than it does about the law.

Besides, if leftists believe abortion mills are medical clinics, why don’t they want them to be treated that way?

And if regulations on an industry infringe on the rights of those who wish to access whatever good or service that industry provides, why don’t they attach that principle to anything else?

Why do leftists magically become anti-regulation libertarian extremists only when it comes to abortion?

If the Texas law persecutes the customers of abortion clinics, do regulations on orthodontists create an undue burden on people who need braces?

And what about guns? Leftists breathlessly insist that regulations on the gun industry will save lives. They scoff at the notion that gun laws infringe on gun rights – rights which, by the way, are explicitly outlined in the Second Amendment. But why doesn’t that same logic apply to abortion?

To make matters even more confusing, the majority opinion actually says that “an extra layer of regulation” would not prevent bad behavior, and that “determined wrongdoers” will do wrong regardless of the law. Since when do leftists use that rationale for anything? How can they suddenly adopt an argument they were scornfully mocking yesterday, and will continue to mock tomorrow when the conversation turns back to guns?

I could go on. The contradictions are endless. Leftists demand that abortion clinics be allowed to operate entirely outside of the regulatory laws that govern everything else, and they argue the point using logic that falls entirely outside of the logic they use when discussing everything else. To call this mere hypocrisy would not even begin to describe it.

3. Of course, they just as quickly accuse us of the hypocrisy. Conservatives are the ones being inconsistent, they say. We usually oppose regulation yet insist on it in this case. Why is that, they ask?

Well, I don’t mind answering the charge: First of all, we don’t oppose regulation in principle. I’m not sure I’ve ever met a conservative who thinks the gun industry or any other industry should be entirely free of regulation and completely immune from all laws and all oversight. We may argue that many regulations are unnecessary and counterproductive, but lawlessness is not a conservative position.

Leftists accuse us of harboring such anarchist views, but ironically, they are the ones who harbor them. When it comes to the abortion industry, they will not accept any law, any regulation, or any amount of oversight at all. They really do want the abortion industry to be above the law. And now, if the states all cooperate with the Supreme Court, it will be.

Second, we’ve seen what happens when abortion clinics are unregulated. We don’t have to come up with hypotheticals. Kermit Gosnell killed born-alive infants and grown women in a dingy butcher shop with blood stains on the walls and dead bodies piled up in the refrigerator and the corpses of infants clogging up the toilets. He hired unlicensed kids to assist in dangerous operations and distribute medicine to desperate, poor women. He didn’t even bother to sanitize his equipment before he sliced open his patients, sometimes giving them infections and venereal diseases in the process. He did all of this for 30 years in a facility situated right in the middle of a major American city. And he wasn’t alone. There are other Gosnells, and they all clearly demonstrate what happens when the abortion industry is allowed free rein to govern itself.

Third, I fully admit that pro-lifers want to regulate abortion clinics primarily as a means to close them down and save human lives. I am more “pro-regulation” with abortion clinics than I am with anything else. And that’s because abortion clinics exist solely to kill people. No other industry in America exists purely for that purpose, therefore no other industry deserves the same level of scrutiny.

Yes, we pro-lifers are guilty as charged. We’re nefariously using regulation as a cover to stop babies from being slaughtered. Our ideal country, we must confess, is not a country where abortion clinics are safe and clean, but a country where there is no such thing as abortion clinics. After all, even the safest clinic is only safe for half of the people concerned. The other half – the babies – end up just as dead anyway.

It’s true, as liberals have theorized, that most of the people who support abortion regulations also happen to hate abortion. But it’s not true that our anti-abortion views render all abortion regulations unconstitutional or unreasonable. And the reverse is just as true, although leftists will not be as honest about it: They oppose regulations on clinics not because they really think the regulations are unconstitutional, but because they want more abortions.

There is, we discover, an underlying bias on both sides. Nobody is arguing about this objectively. This is really an argument about abortion itself. That’s where all of our motivations are rooted. Leftists are motivated by a desire to live in a country where parents are allowed to kill their children with impunity, and pro-lifers are motivated by a desire to live in a country where babies are allowed to live and grow. We are biased by our love of children, they are biased by their worship of self.

I guess that’s why I’m willing to admit to my bias. And it’s probably why they aren’t willing to admit to theirs.

Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jun 27, 2016

WampaLord
Jan 14, 2010

Popular Thug Drink posted:

not really, the industry self regulates because it's in every performer's interest to remain STD free - regular mandatory testing and professional standards handle the situation pretty well. the industry even keeps a database of test results. and the law simply isn't going to be effective, because if it passes the production companies will just move somewhere else

I said an increased risk. You can never reduce the risk to 0, even with testing. Condoms could help in those rare cases when a performer has a STD but hasn't yet been tested for it.

I agree that the production companies will simply move to where they can avoid the regulation, which is exactly what they have done and why you don't see condoms in porn currently.

E: And would you please start capitalizing your sentences? You're clearly capable of using uppercase letters.

WampaLord fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jun 27, 2016

Periodiko
Jan 30, 2005
Uh.

Mr Interweb posted:

He actually uses the term "anti-racist" as a negative. But hey, party of Lincoln, etc.

No he isn't, he's juxtaposing traditionally left-Democratic positions (the first three) with what he proposes are traditional conservative GOP positions.

Epic High Five
Jun 5, 2004



Chilichimp posted:

So this is floating around:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/06/27/26-democrats-who-participated-gun-control-sit-own-guns

I guess the implication of this article is that owning guns while wanting more gun control makes you a hypocrite?

Didn't take much ground being lost for the NRA and gun nut crowd to start eating their own

Toss out the people who own guns but want common sense gun control, yessssss

boner confessor
Apr 25, 2013

by R. Guyovich

WampaLord posted:

I said an increased risk. You can never reduce the risk to 0, even with testing. Condoms could help in those rare cases when a performer has a STD but hasn't yet been tested for it.

from a cost benefit perspective though the burdens of mandatory condom use don't acceptably reduce the risk. the current self regulation system is pretty effective, it's been like a decade since any porn performer in the formal industry has caught HIV because of a porn shoot and other STD outbreaks are pretty rare, which is usually met with a temporary shutdown of production to limit its spread

Dapper_Swindler
Feb 14, 2012

Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

Cardboard Box A posted:

http://nypost.com/2016/06/23/free-state-of-jones-has-an-unexpected-take-on-the-civil-war/

Far be it from me to read political meanings into a Civil War movie, but “Free State of Jones” is enticingly difficult to chart. It’s anti-war, anti-plutocracy and anti-racist, but it’s also pro-Bible, pro-gun, anti-tax and sympathetic to the poor whites who usually get tagged as racist. Its hero is an avowed Republican named Newt.

well its based on a real dude. yeah he didnt have the a dead kid and i think the body count was a little lower, but its a real story.

Mr Interweb posted:

He actually uses the term "anti-racist" as a negative. But hey, party of Lincoln, etc.

oh jesus. why. is seeing a movie about black and white people forming a state and killing sentient piles of poo poo suddenly bad.

Crowsbeak
Oct 9, 2012

by Azathoth
Lipstick Apathy
I always like how Matt wants to hate on gays and abortions but just cant help but can help to make it perfectly clear he has mutilated his body in numerous photos with that tattoo of his.

Dapper_Swindler posted:

well its based on a real dude. yeah he didnt have the a dead kid and i think the body count was a little lower, but its a real story.


oh jesus. why. is seeing a movie about black and white people forming a state and killing sentient piles of poo poo suddenly bad.


Frankly its because these people really do believe that lost cause narrative.

Magres
Jul 14, 2011

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

I was waiting for this

Texas, Ignore The Supreme Court And Enforce Your Abortion Laws Anyway

quote:

Predictably, the overturning of the Texas abortion regulations sent leftists across the country into fits of demonic jubilation.

I, for one, am demonically jubilant. Today is a good day and that ruling is a good ruling.

Mr Interweb
Aug 25, 2004

Periodiko posted:

No he isn't, he's juxtaposing traditionally left-Democratic positions (the first three) with what he proposes are traditional conservative GOP positions.

How are traditionally left-democratic positions not the same as bad though?

Mr Ice Cream Glove
Apr 22, 2007

I would respect in a sense if a republican came out and said "yeah this isn't about safety we just wanted to close clinics"

Dapper_Swindler
Feb 14, 2012

Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

Magres posted:

I, for one, am demonically jubilant. Today is a good day and that ruling is a good ruling.

do fucks like him honestly believe in demons/daemons/whatever.

Dapper_Swindler
Feb 14, 2012

Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

Crowsbeak posted:

I always like how Matt wants to hate on gays and abortions but just cant help but can help to make it perfectly clear he has mutilated his body in numerous photos with that tattoo of his.



Frankly its because these people really do believe that lost cause narrative.

Its a interesting story. the dollop did an episode on it.

Periodiko
Jan 30, 2005
Uh.

Mr Interweb posted:

How are traditionally left-democratic positions not the same as bad though?

...? "Far be it from me to read political meanings into a Civil War movie, but “Free State of Jones” is enticingly difficult to chart. It’s anti-war, anti-plutocracy and anti-racist, but it’s also pro-Bible, pro-gun, anti-tax and sympathetic to the poor whites who usually get tagged as racist."

He's saying it doesn't fit in either a traditional metropolitan left-wing or right-wing rural southern narrative and describing that quality as "enticing". How on earth are you getting a value judgment about anti-racism from that.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Geostomp
Oct 22, 2008

Unite: MASH!!
~They've got the bad guys on the run!~

Mel Mudkiper posted:

I know its been said before but I can never understand why conservatives wrap themselves up so much in concern for the unborn when they don't a drat about children once they are born

Same reason they love dead soldiers so much: all the easy self-righteousness of a cause without the problem of an actual living person to complicate things with needs or disagreement with any of their policies.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply