|
Ventana posted:I must have missed the part of the bible where Jesus said wearing a mask + spitting into small tubes once every 2 weeks was a sin. It's right next to the part where it says being gay is a sin and how you need to hate the sinner while denying them any sort of rights.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 14:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I had to get some vaccines when I went to college because they weren't part of the schedule when I was a baby/child. These people are so loving stupid. good thing republicans are planning on making this illegal
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 14:31
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I had to get some vaccines when I went to college because they weren't part of the schedule when I was a baby/child. These people are so loving stupid. I know people who claimed “personal beliefs” exemption because checking the box and signing was less effort than getting the records.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 14:37
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:good thing republicans are planning on making this illegal not all colleges though, they'll still allow liberty/oral roberts/BYU/everest/corinthian
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 14:45
|
|
|
When you showed up to boot camp, if you didn't have a shot record, they gave you a full round of everything with a couple of exceptions. You get in a line and just work your way down the hall getting vaccines in each arm via little air guns. I sadly know a lot of active duty people who have not gotten a covid vaccine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 14:45
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:not all colleges though, they'll still allow liberty/oral roberts/BYU/everest/corinthian If they don't give those groups exceptions then they'd be infringing on the religious freedoms of those organizations to impose their beliefs on others. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 15:50
|
|
|
it's the same old second grade civics what-if bullshit "sorry, my religion sincerely believes I need to flay the skin of Christians, stop infringing on my rights"
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
is communion wine and bread not subject to FDA regs or something what is wrong with their brain chemistry
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 17:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1417213226492772355?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Exactly how much work can she even do when she's going to have to recuse herself from working on any case involving the Justice Department?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
Recusal is optional.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
It's more gross Kagan just gave her a close to half million dollar payday. It's a big club and we aint in it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:So you're saying the US should be compared to 3rd world and developing nations instead? Instead we should only look at countries that are in varying states of crisis and lawlessness to see whether or not gun control works, while ignoring everything else? Even within that subgroup, there is little correlation between stricter gun laws and lower murder rates. The liberalization of Czech gun laws after the fall of the Iron Curtain didn't result in a spike in homicides. Between Australia's 1996 NFA and the Christchurch shooting in 2019, New Zealand had less restrictive gun laws than Australia, but didn't have a higher murder rate. Similarly, Australia did not see a significant reduction in murder rate beyond pre-existing trends following their NFA, and evidence that it had a significant effect on murders committed with a firearm is weak. Cattail Prophet posted:The only obfuscation here is pretending that suicides somehow don't count as "gun violence," I would like for people not to use guns to kill other people or themselves, please and thank you. Suicide and interpersonal violence are different problems with different causes and different solutions, it makes little sense to lump them together. If I were calling for greater crash safety standards in automobiles based on a "car deaths" metric that it turned out also included people driving into lakes or sitting in their garage with the engine running to end their lives, you'd rightly think I was being disingenuous. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Jul 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 21:27
|
|
at the lengths you're going to not acknowledge that gun control works and trying to argue against it by pointing to countries heavily damaged by outside influences and in at least two of your examples, foreign-backed coups (successful or otherwise) where the rule of law in general has broken down across the board.
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The policies promoted most often by pro-disarmament activists (assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, regulations on the number of firearms or amount of ammunition that can be purchased at a time, universal background checks, San Jose's ridiculous new insurance requirement that they're going to spend millions of taxpayer dollars litigating before it gets overturned) are all squarely aimed at interpersonal violence, are promoted based on fears of interpersonal violence, and would have no effect on suicides: it isn't easier to tuck an AR-15 with a drum magazine under your chin. There is scant evidence that these measures actually reduce interpersonal violence, so they're bad policy. That's because the policies that actually fix all of these problems, like just making private gun ownership illegal or mostly illegal with a few reasonable exceptions, isn't on the table because the American Gun Cult has spent generations making sure its totally unthinkable, and have been backed up a SCOTUS which decided to just change what the 2nd Amendment originally meant because they know better than the people who wrote it what they REALLY meant about Militia service because COMMAS DONCHA KNOW. I guarantee you that "pro-disarmament activists," would much rather cut out the middle man and push for policies which will actually fix the suicide AND interpersonal violence problems at the same time, but unfortunately that's not possible because a minority of the population needs to feel like Big Strong Men with their Murder Toys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 22:23
|
|
|
Also the only reason suicides got singled out in the first place is because you had to carve them out of the data you posted to make it support your argument that stronger gun laws don't lower gun violence. You don't then get to turn around and argue that actually, stronger gun laws won't do anything to prevent suicides either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Guns are a leading method of suicide and are much more effective and successful than many other methods of attempt. People dying by gunfire is the problem. Why not orient a solution around that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2021 01:10
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:That's because the policies that actually fix all of these problems, like just making private gun ownership illegal or mostly illegal with a few reasonable exceptions, isn't on the table because the American Gun Cult has spent generations making sure its totally unthinkable, and have been backed up a SCOTUS which decided to just change what the 2nd Amendment originally meant because they know better than the people who wrote it what they REALLY meant about Militia service because COMMAS DONCHA KNOW. I guarantee you that "pro-disarmament activists," would much rather cut out the middle man and push for policies which will actually fix the suicide AND interpersonal violence problems at the same time, but unfortunately that's not possible because a minority of the population needs to feel like Big Strong Men with their Murder Toys. Also, the collectivist interpretation of 2A really isn't tenable. Can you provide another example of a place where a right reserved to "the people" by the constitution is only enjoyed by groups acting with the permission of the state, rather than individual citizens? Cattail Prophet posted:Also the only reason suicides got singled out in the first place is because you had to carve them out of the data you posted to make it support your argument that stronger gun laws don't lower gun violence. You don't then get to turn around and argue that actually, stronger gun laws won't do anything to prevent suicides either. Grip it and rip it posted:Guns are a leading method of suicide and are much more effective and successful than many other methods of attempt. People dying by gunfire is the problem. Why not orient a solution around that? Perhaps more basically, I don't think "people might hurt themselves with it" to be valid justification for prohibiting people from having something, and certainly not when we're talking about abridging such a fundamental right as self defense. I think pro-disarmament advocates realize that most people agree with me, which is why when they cite "gun death" statistics to call for magazine capacity limits or banning AR-15s, they don't acknowledge that 2/3 of the deaths they're talking about are suicides.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 09:27
|
|
|
I really, really disagree on that. It's simply a fact that many suicides are impulsive decisions taken by people who are at a particularly low point. Every barrier that gives people time to consider it reduces the rates. There's a reason a 2m fence works to greatly reduce the number of people who throw themselves off bridges despite the fact that it's very possible to climb up it. Firearms, especially handguns, are a very easy way to kill yourself. Having them around the house, loaded is basically inviting someone in the grips of clinical depression or utterly crippled by stress to kill themselves. Banning home handgun ownership and legally requiring separate storage of weapons and ammunition (as a condition of holding a licence) for rifles and shotguns would in fact be likely to greatly reduce the suicide by firearms rate. If there isn't an equally effective and accessible replacement (which there probably isn't or you'd not be seeing such a high proportion of suicides by firearms) then you'll see a reduction in the rate of suicide. It's hardly a fix to suicides but the US is one country where limiting that access is eventually going to reduce the numbers of deaths. No it won't massively fix the problem but if total eradication of a problem was the bar for implementing a change or fix you'd never do anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 09:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. You accept the fact that these policies won't meaningfully affect the problem they're notionally intended to address, but you favor pursuing them anyway? Why? Vibes? "Because the problem cannot be solved completely, mitigation of the problem is not worth pursuing." How about no? Also, the idea that the 2nd Amendment can't mean what is says because that would make it different from the other reserved rights ergo it must mean something more consistent with those other rights regardless of its actual wording is stupid nonsense rooted entirely in starting from the conclusion you want and working backwards to justify it. Which is what I expect from Originalism, so kudos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 10:30
|
|
|
also those reserved rights and liberties aren't universally unalienable, they can be revoked with due process of law (for example felons can't own guns)
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 11:48
|
|
|
Just make everyone a felon. Bing bong so simple.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 12:27
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Just make everyone a felon. Bing bong so simple. or just add tax delinquency to the list of things that come up as a no-go in NICS and then make it a felony to sell, transfer, or receive a firearm without completing a NICS check
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 12:31
|
|
|
Arm the homeless and noone else
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 13:59
|
|
|
Since that tweet has now vanished: https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1417607307316408320 https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1417860317363773441
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
The idea of someone losing a chance to be a SCOTUS clerk because of their dad being a high profile name and the appearance of impropriety that creates sucks, but then you need to think about the probability she only got the job in the first place because of her dad. Hereditary nepotism is bad, but its still a bummer when someone loses something through no fault of their own. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:The idea of someone losing a chance to be a SCOTUS clerk because of their dad being a high profile name and the appearance of impropriety that creates sucks, but then you need to think about the probability she only got the job in the first place because of her dad. Hereditary nepotism is bad, but its still a bummer when someone loses something through no fault of their own. Thankfully if you're at the level where you're genuinely in the running for a SCOTUS clerkship, you're going to have a number of options.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1418373294680649729 https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/politics/mississippi-roe-v-wade-abortion/index.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 02:00
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:The idea of someone losing a chance to be a SCOTUS clerk because of their dad being a high profile name and the appearance of impropriety that creates sucks, but then you need to think about the probability she only got the job in the first place because of her dad. Hereditary nepotism is bad, but its still a bummer when someone loses something through no fault of their own. She’ll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 02:05
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1418373294680649729 so they're going to do it now, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 02:10
|
|
|
Great news https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1418380603410558976
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 02:28
|
|
|
Bad news https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1418329252555104264
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 04:47
|
|
|
The fetal viability standard is bad, but overturning Roe is badder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 06:50
|
|
|
I guess this is it. Now we see how far the 6-Nazi Majority on the court is willing to go in their war on women from their position of near-immunity from consequences with only the fear of how the public might react to their actions to hold them back, and if they are ready to cross that line what the country is willing to do about it once they can no longer sit back and hope they won't pull the trigger on the gun they were handed.
Sanguinia fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Jul 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 08:39
|
|
|
Not to sound like an accelerationist or downplay the abject suffering it would cause a ton of women until it was reversed, but SCOTUS striking down Roe v. Wade in the next session would pretty much be the best possible thing they could do for Dem chances to retain or even make gains in Congress during the 2022 midterms. Even I - noted Dem skeptic - think that the party would realize they have to do something if that actually happened, even if it meant sitting Manchin and Sinema down and promising infinite money for them, their campaigns, and their states in perpetuity so they'd agree to a filibuster nuke. Like imagine if the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress and the WH, and the October before the midterm election year a 6-3 or 5-4 liberal SCOTUS decided that actually the 2nd Amendment only refers to the rights or organized militias, striking down the majority of permitted carry laws. Not only would the Dems get loving slaughtered next election but it would all but force the GOP controlled Congress to respond. If the ruling party doesn't respond in such a situation, they are for all intents and purposes signaling they are dead in the water. e. Again, this is not at all me saying "I hope SCOTUS is actually stupid enough to overturn Roe v. Wade", I genuinely hope they do NOT do that because jeasus loving christ it will screw so many people's lives over, predominantly poor and minority women. More me talking out loud that I cannot believe the conservative wing of SCOTUS (well, outside of Alito/Thomas) would actually be stupid enough to torpedo their party to do it at this point in time when they've shown the unfortunate cunning to lean hard into the long game. Sydin fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Jul 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 09:22
|
|
|
Even setting aside the accelerationism problems with that argument, the issue is that any such effects will happen too late. The Republicans will probably retake either the House or Senate in 2022.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 12:58
|
|
|
For anyone who thinks it'll be "left to the states" keep it mind it absolutely will not be. Any ruling that overturns Roe is going to make abortion illegal in its entirety. We might get an exception for medical emergencies but you have at least 4 members of the court (Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Kavanugh) who want abortion to be illegal completely. Roberts and Gorsuch want it gone too but might be ok with exceptions to save the woman's life. Sydin posted:Not to sound like an accelerationist or downplay the abject suffering it would cause a ton of women until it was reversed, but SCOTUS striking down Roe v. Wade in the next session would pretty much be the best possible thing they could do for Dem chances to retain or even make gains in Congress during the 2022 midterms. Even I - noted Dem skeptic - think that the party would realize they have to do something if that actually happened, even if it meant sitting Manchin and Sinema down and promising infinite money for them, their campaigns, and their states in perpetuity so they'd agree to a filibuster nuke. Manchin is anti-abortion and his voting record has been pretty consistent there. He's 100% on board with Roe being struck down and there's nothing Dems can offer him to change that. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Even setting aside the accelerationism problems with that argument, the issue is that any such effects will happen too late. The Republicans will probably retake either the House or Senate in 2022. And when they retake either, let alone both, the government is going to come to a screeching halt as they do everything in their power to win the WH in 2024. If the Dems are stupid enough to run Harris (assuming Biden doesn't run again) then we're pretty hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 13:35
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:For anyone who thinks it'll be "left to the states" keep it mind it absolutely will not be. Any ruling that overturns Roe is going to make abortion illegal in its entirety. We might get an exception for medical emergencies but you have at least 4 members of the court (Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Kavanugh) who want abortion to be illegal completely. Roberts and Gorsuch want it gone too but might be ok with exceptions to save the woman's life. What makes you say this? And would the upcoming cases on the subject permit it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 14:37
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:And when they retake either, let alone both, the government is going to come to a screeching halt as they do everything in their power to win the WH in 2024. If the Dems are stupid enough to run Harris (assuming Biden doesn't run again) then we're pretty hosed. If they win both in 2022 they could just impeach and remove both biden and harris right
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
Booourns posted:If they win both in 2022 they could just impeach and remove both biden and harris right They're not going to get 2/3rds of the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
Booourns posted:If they win both in 2022 they could just impeach and remove both biden and harris right if democrats lost every single seat up for re-election, including blue states where nobody will bother to run a challenger, mitch still wouldn't get two thirds
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 21:29
|
|
