The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
I am pretty convinced that a high percentage - maybe even a majority - of those cheering the overturning of Roe v. Wade will actually exercise choice if an unplanned or medically complicated pregnancy affects them personally. I think Roe v. Wade is one of a few issues that has become the hill on which we will fight for many conservatives.
tjohn said:
I am pretty convinced that a high percentage - maybe even a majority - of those cheering the overturning of Roe v. Wade will actually exercise choice if an unplanned or medically complicated pregnancy affects them personally. I think Roe v. Wade is one of a few issues that has become the hill on which we will fight for many conservatives.
they are the biggest hypocrites in the country. How many church leaders have paid for abortions after they had been screwing around with the young women in their churches? It’s time to open up that can of worms. Democrats have been way too nice in dealing with these people.
tjohn said:
I am pretty convinced that a high percentage - maybe even a majority - of those cheering the overturning of Roe v. Wade will actually exercise choice if an unplanned or medically complicated pregnancy affects them personally. I think Roe v. Wade is one of a few issues that has become the hill on which we will fight for many conservatives.
I do believe that many women, and men, have learned so much more on the developing of a fetus over the last 10 years. Miracles in medicine, and the ability to see a child progress through the development stages, have given us a portrait of human life “under construction,” as never before. I believe the science is a mind-changer.
mtierney said:
tjohn said:
I am pretty convinced that a high percentage - maybe even a majority - of those cheering the overturning of Roe v. Wade will actually exercise choice if an unplanned or medically complicated pregnancy affects them personally. I think Roe v. Wade is one of a few issues that has become the hill on which we will fight for many conservatives.
I do believe that many women, and men, have learned so much more on the developing of a fetus over the last 10 years. Miracles in medicine, and the ability to see a child progress through the development stages, have given us a portrait of human life “under construction,” as never before. I believe the science is a mind-changer.
An observation that has nothing to do with my assertion that when it comes to their own pregnancy, almost all women are pro-choice. And men, even more so, when faced with the inconvenience of an unwanted child.
tjohn said:
An observation that has nothing to do with my assertion that when it comes to their own pregnancy, almost all women are pro-choice. And men, even more so, when faced with the inconvenience of an unwanted child.
If a potential child is “inconvenient” and/or “unwanted,” it may be about time men took medical precautions, such as messing with their sperm, diminishing the harmony of nature, and eating pills and using devices internally which make some women feel miserably uncomfortable.
What to do with men who have fun and then run? Promiscuous sex is made to feel as inalienable equal rights for liberated women in society today. It is not.
mtierney said:
tjohn said:
An observation that has nothing to do with my assertion that when it comes to their own pregnancy, almost all women are pro-choice. And men, even more so, when faced with the inconvenience of an unwanted child.
If a potential child is “inconvenient” and/or “unwanted,” it may be about time men took medical precautions, such as messing with their sperm, diminishing the harmony of nature, and eating pills and using devices internally which make some women feel miserably uncomfortable.
What to do with men who have fun and then run? Promiscuous sex is made to feel as inalienable equal rights for liberated women in society today. It is not.
Nobody here will dispute that men act responsibility at all times. In the real world, that doesn't always happen.
Now, why you associate promiscuity with unplanned pregnancies is quite beyond me. There are quite a few men and women in committed relationships where the woman ends up pregnant despite proper use of birth control measures.
mtierney said:
tjohn said:
An observation that has nothing to do with my assertion that when it comes to their own pregnancy, almost all women are pro-choice. And men, even more so, when faced with the inconvenience of an unwanted child.
If a potential child is “inconvenient” and/or “unwanted,” it may be about time men took medical precautions, such as messing with their sperm, diminishing the harmony of nature, and eating pills and using devices internally which make some women feel miserably uncomfortable.
What to do with men who have fun and then run? Promiscuous sex is made to feel as inalienable equal rights for liberated women in society today. It is not.
that first paragraph is one of the stranger things I've ever read.
Kinda sounds like General Jack D. Ripper.
mtierney said:
A lot of confusion over the comments by President Obama at the Rose Garden press conference just after the Benghazi murders
Six dead Americans (vs 2 at Benghazi) and many wounded at yesterdays Republican sponsored murder spree and yet not even a thought or a prayer from mtierney?
GoSlugs said:
Six dead Americans (vs 2 at Benghazi) and many wounded at yesterdays Republican sponsored murder spree and yet not even a thought or a prayer from mtierney?
There were four Americans killed in Benghazi in 2012.
mtierney said:
There were four Americans killed in Benghazi in 2012.
Oh my! Still three less than were killed in Illinois yesterday.
A thorough examination of the SCOTUS ruling last week…”Taking a knee” — in protest, or in prayer — on the sports field.
Supreme Court Puts Kennedy Back in the Game
“For years, Joe Kennedy—then the assistant football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington state—would walk to the 50-yard line after the game clock wound down to zero and bow his head in prayer. Little did he know those prayers would one day lead to his suspension, bring him to the highest court in the land, and make him an avatar for one of the most significant—and closely watched—religious liberty cases in years.
“Writing for the 6-3 majority in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District last week, Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with the coach, comparing his prayers to a Muslim teacher wearing her hijab in class or a Christian teacher praying over her lunch—private acts permissible despite their status as public employees. “Kennedy prayed during a period when school employees were free to speak with a friend, call for a reservation at a restaurant, check email, or attend to other personal matters,” Gorsuch wrote. “He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied.”
“The majority based its decision purely on the three games that the district cited in suspending Kennedy, concerned that his public prayers could be construed as the district endorsing a religion. “The contested exercise here does not involve leading prayers with the team,” Gorsuch wrote. “The District disciplined Mr. Kennedy only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students after three games in October 2015.”
“But there was more to the story than those three games, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent, including a picture of the coach hoisting a helmet mid-field while surrounded by players. The prayers began when Kennedy’s coaching career did, in 2008, and continued more or less without incident for seven years, until an employee of another high school brought the practice to the attention of Bremerton’s principal. Players occasionally asked Kennedy if they could join him, and would sometimes even invite opposing players as well. Kennedy maintains he never coerced, required, or asked students to participate, but over time, the coach’s silent prayers morphed into motivational speeches, often infused with Christian teaching.
“Concerned Kennedy was in violation of the public school’s policies on religious practices, district administrators requested the coach abstain from praying with students, but allowed him to continue doing so on his own on the field as long as it “did not interfere with job responsibilities” and was “physically separate from any student activity.” Kennedy attempted to comply, waiting for his players to disperse post-game before getting down on one knee, but students, coaches, and members of the public continued to join him after games—particularly after he hired lawyers and began attracting media attention. After one game, supporters rushed the field, knocking over members of the marching band.
“It was at that point the district prohibited Kennedy from engaging in any “demonstrative religious activity” that was “readily observable” to students and the public, suggesting he pray in a “private location” on school grounds instead. When Kennedy continued with his customary 50-yard-line prayer, he was placed on administrative leave—and did not return as a coach the following season.
“In her dissent, Sotomayor argued that context—much of which was absent from Gorsuch’s majority opinion—was necessary to reach the correct conclusion in the case. “Properly understood, this case is not about the limits on an individual’s ability to engage in private prayer at work,” she wrote. “This case is about whether a school district is required to allow one of its employees to incorporate a public, communicative display of the employee’s personal religious beliefs into a school event, where that display is recognizable as part of a longstanding practice of the employee ministering religion to students as the public watched.”
“Sotomayor’s dissent also focused on the power dynamics at play in the situation at hand. “Students face immense social pressure,” she wrote, even if they aren’t pushed to join prayers or punished for skipping them. “Students look up to their teachers and coaches as role models and seek their approval. Students also depend on this approval for tangible benefits … from extra playing time to a stronger letter of recommendation to additional support in college athletic recruiting.”
“Gorsuch dismissed these concerns, arguing that—particularly following the three October 2015 games for which Kennedy was disciplined—students were free not to participate, and generally didn’t. “There is no indication in the record that anyone expressed any coercion concerns to the District about the quiet, postgame prayers that Mr. Kennedy asked to continue and that led to his suspension,” he wrote. “Nor is there any record evidence that students felt pressured to participate in these prayers. … The District asks us to adopt the view that the only acceptable government role models for students are those who eschew any visible religious expression.”
“In ruling that the district had overstepped in suspending Kennedy, the Court dispensed once and for all with the “reasonable observer” standard Bremerton school officials were worried about violating. Under the so-called Lemon test established by the Supreme Court in 1971’s Lemon v. Kurtzman, lower courts decided whether a government entity had violated the Establishment Clause—the First Amendment’s prohibition on the government supporting any religion—by considering whether a “reasonable observer” could conclude that the government’s actions endorsed a religion. Lower courts continued employing the test even after the Supreme Court undermined it, prompting former Justice Antonin Scalia to compare itto “some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried.” In this ruling, the Court officially declared it had long ago dumped Lemon and told lower courts to get on board. At last, its self-inflicted Night of the Living Dead was over.
“But the Kennedy decision leaves other questions unanswered, providing no standards for how other government entities can or should restrict public employees’ religious expression on the job. “The Court refrains from deciding whether or how public employees’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause may or may not be different from those enjoyed by the general public,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurrence. “The Court also does not decide what burden a government employer must shoulder to justify restricting an employee’s religious expression.”
“But the justices definitely did decide at least one thing: Kennedy won his case, and can have his part-time coaching job back if he wants it. “This is just so awesome," he said in a statement after the ruling.
https://thedispatch.com/p/the-morning-dispatch-scotus-okays
mtierney said:
Supreme Court Puts Kennedy Back in the Game
nohero said:
the majority had to lie about the specifics of the case in order to come to their decision. It was shameful.
On the plus side, does that mean it's only a precedent for facts as described in their opinion (as opposed to the apparent actual facts)?
mjc said:
On the plus side, does that mean it's only a precedent for facts as described in their opinion (as opposed to the apparent actual facts)?
If you're feeling optimistic. If, OTOH, you suspect that the conservative majority is simply making decisions to support the dominance of white, culturally conservative Christians, then it means that when similar cases arise involving disfavored religious traditions the justices will insist that the facts in that case are different and so that exercise of religion is not protected by the first amendment.
I guess if they're slippery with one set of facts, there's no reason to think they'd be more particular another time. : (
ATTENTION PLEASE
Disregard the fact that this amazing profile on Clarence Thomas will totally change your perception of the man, and the judge, and read it. It should make you very angry and riled up about how racial equality has been high jacked in America.
Disregard the fact that I posted it! Prove to fellow liberals, conservatives, and progressives here that knowledge is power. Be courageous and expand your vision.
Sample…
“Thomas nonetheless believed that as American society condemned blacks to an outlook of scant hope, redressing social imbalances was legitimate government work. Around this time he happened to befriend future U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who introduced Thomas to a new set of ideas.
“In a debate over whether mandating helmets for motorcyclists was meritorious policy — Thomas felt accident-related health care costs demanded such a rule — Bolton asked him: “Clarence, as a member of a group that has been treated shabbily by the majority in this country, why would you want to give the government more power over your personal life?”
“That stopped me cold,” Thomas writes:
I thought of what Daddy had said when I asked him why he’d never gone on public assistance. ‘Because it takes away your manhood,’ he said. ‘You do that and they can ask you questions about your life that are none of their business. They can come into your house when they want to, and they can tell you who else can come and go in your house.’ Daddy and John, I saw, were making the same point: real freedom meant independence from government intrusion, which in turn meant that you had to take responsibility for your own decisions. When the government assumes that responsibility, it takes away your freedom — and wasn’t freedom the very thing for which blacks in America were fighting?
“Thomas’s worldview made a prodigal return “to the real world.” In many eyes, though, this made him a traitor, for it positioned him as an opponent of programs advertised as pro-black.”
@DB — ever consistent, you replied before reading anything you suspect might hurt your head!
mtierney said:
ATTENTION PLEASE
Disregard the fact that this amazing profile on Clarence Thomas will totally change your perception of the man, and the judge, and read it. It should make you very angry and riled up about how racial equality has been high jacked in America.
Disregard the fact that I posted it! Prove to fellow liberals, conservatives, and progressives here that knowledge is power. Be courageous and expand your vision.
Thomas is, and has always been, a horrible human.
mtierney said:
ATTENTION PLEASE
Disregard the fact that this amazing profile on Clarence Thomas will totally change your perception of the man, and the judge, and read it. It should make you very angry and riled up about how racial equality has been high jacked in America.
Disregard the fact that I posted it! Prove to fellow liberals, conservatives, and progressives here that knowledge is power. Be courageous and expand your vision.
also, thefederalist is far worse than the national review. reading them makes you more stupid.
Clarence Thomas will go down in history as one of the worst people in U.S. history to hold a position of power.
Unless the GOP succeeds in turning the U.S. into a fascist authoritarian state. In that case, their history will hail him as a great hero.
DB doesn’t read links, but I had thought you, m1 might.
another sample….
“As a child Thomas had been taught that a man’s life is his own responsibility, but according to Marxist theories of racial oppression, progress comes through “revolution.” To black nationalist Marxists, white racism explained every problem, Thomas says. It was “the trump card that won every argument.” He co-founded the Black Student Union, a leftist group whose advocacy included anti-Vietnam protesting.
At one BSU rally, he says that after the crowd worked itself into a frenzy with leftist sloganeering, “We drank our way to Harvard Square, where our disorderly parade deteriorated into a full-scale riot.” It went on through the night. After returning to campus early the next morning, Thomas became horrified: “I had let myself be swept up by an angry mob for no good reason other than that I, too, was angry.”
“In the whirlwind of irrational violence, the BSU students, he realized, had perpetuated an unwelcome stereotype, that of the angry black man. This anger was sanctioned. Thomas describes black students flagrantly violating the student code of conduct and making tall demands, only for the administration to cave every time.
“Black students also bonded through black-nationalist politics. Mixing radical politics with the entitlement mentality the administration encouraged quickly proved toxic. Already unprepared for living among whites, Thomas says, many of these unprepared black students gave up class in favor of drugs and “cultlike Eastern religions.” Others dropped or failed out.”
mtierney said:
DB doesn’t read links, but I had thought you might.
I read links that have at least a hint of a promise of being informative.
And half the time, when I bother to read one of your links, turns out you haven't.
Why don't you tell us what makes Thomas such a wonderful man, now that you've been enlightened by thefederalist?
The mere fact that he has helped to bring a creature like Ginni Thomas to prominence is enough to damn him to hell for all eternity, but you know, give it a shot. Maybe you'll convince me.
Worst power couple in history.
mtierney said:
DB doesn’t read links, but I had thought you, m1 might.
another sample….
“As a child Thomas had been taught that a man’s life is his own responsibility, but according to Marxist theories of racial oppression, progress comes through “revolution.” To black nationalist Marxists, white racism explained every problem, Thomas says. It was “the trump card that won every argument.” He co-founded the Black Student Union, a leftist group whose advocacy included anti-Vietnam protesting.
At one BSU rally, he says that after the crowd worked itself into a frenzy with leftist sloganeering, “We drank our way to Harvard Square, where our disorderly parade deteriorated into a full-scale riot.” It went on through the night. After returning to campus early the next morning, Thomas became horrified: “I had let myself be swept up by an angry mob for no good reason other than that I, too, was angry.”
“In the whirlwind of irrational violence, the BSU students, he realized, had perpetuated an unwelcome stereotype, that of the angry black man. This anger was sanctioned. Thomas describes black students flagrantly violating the student code of conduct and making tall demands, only for the administration to cave every time.
“Black students also bonded through black-nationalist politics. Mixing radical politics with the entitlement mentality the administration encouraged quickly proved toxic. Already unprepared for living among whites, Thomas says, many of these unprepared black students gave up class in favor of drugs and “cultlike Eastern religions.” Others dropped or failed out.”
Also, I wouldn't believe a word that Thomas says about his life. He came onto the national stage as a clear liar.
Also, he's so damn stupid and so bought into right-wing nonsense that he thinks covid vaccines were “developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.”
And he put that in damn SCOTUS decision.
Makes you proud I bet, huh?
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/30/clarence-thomas-covid-vaccines-dissent-00043483
MT can never figure out why black people can be angry. She, just like the other bigots of the Republican Party, are happy to have black people like Clarence Thomas and Candace Owens carrying water for them. They put them up front and center, like some anomaly at a circus. As soon as they display any anger or disgust with the narrative, they’re ostracized and even called n……s. Clarence is uncomfortable in his own skin. It’s not easy being black in this world, it’s a struggle from birth to fit in, to be accepted, to just be free. Some people have acquired the ability to be like chameleons, and go into survivalist mode. He became a good ole boy, so good, in fact Ginni’s family didn’t even think he was a black man. He didn’t want to be black. It wasn’t because of the night of drunken protests, that made him hate his own race, it was his revelation that black people were never going to be taken seriously, unless they erased their history and their ancestors. He’s part of the problem. Period.
Jaytee said:
MT can never figure out why black people can be angry. She, just like the other bigots of the Republican Party, are happy to have black people like Clarence Thomas and Candace Owens carrying water for them. They put them up front and center, like some anomaly at a circus. As soon as they display any anger or disgust with the narrative, they’re ostracized and even called n……s. Clarence is uncomfortable in his own skin. It’s not easy being black in this world, it’s a struggle from birth to fit in, to be accepted, to just be free. Some people have acquired the ability to be like chameleons, and go into survivalist mode. He became a good ole boy, so good, in fact Ginni’s family didn’t even think he was a black man. He didn’t want to be black. It wasn’t because of the night of drunken protests, that made him hate his own race, it was his revelation that black people were never going to be taken seriously, unless they erased their history and their ancestors. He’s part of the problem. Period.
utterly amazing he married into that family. What kind of low self-esteem must you have to do that?
Is this cartoon meant to be Ms Clinton? If so, why does she have a beard?? Even if it’s not her, but some other woman, why the beard? Sorry, I’m just confused today - was focused on other things. Ta.
mtierney said:
DB doesn’t read links, but I had thought you, m1 might.
another sample….
“As a child Thomas had been taught that a man’s life is his own responsibility, but according to Marxist theories of racial oppression, progress comes through “revolution.” To black nationalist Marxists, white racism explained every problem, Thomas says. It was “the trump card that won every argument.” He co-founded the Black Student Union, a leftist group whose advocacy included anti-Vietnam protesting.
At one BSU rally, he says that after the crowd worked itself into a frenzy with leftist sloganeering, “We drank our way to Harvard Square, where our disorderly parade deteriorated into a full-scale riot.” It went on through the night. After returning to campus early the next morning, Thomas became horrified: “I had let myself be swept up by an angry mob for no good reason other than that I, too, was angry.”
“In the whirlwind of irrational violence, the BSU students, he realized, had perpetuated an unwelcome stereotype, that of the angry black man. This anger was sanctioned. Thomas describes black students flagrantly violating the student code of conduct and making tall demands, only for the administration to cave every time.
“Black students also bonded through black-nationalist politics. Mixing radical politics with the entitlement mentality the administration encouraged quickly proved toxic. Already unprepared for living among whites, Thomas says, many of these unprepared black students gave up class in favor of drugs and “cultlike Eastern religions.” Others dropped or failed out.”
mtierney said:
DB doesn’t read links, but I had thought you, m1 might.
another sample….
“As a child Thomas had been taught that a man’s life is his own responsibility, but according to Marxist theories of racial oppression, progress comes through “revolution.” To black nationalist Marxists, white racism explained every problem, Thomas says. It was “the trump card that won every argument.” He co-founded the Black Student Union, a leftist group whose advocacy included anti-Vietnam protesting.
At one BSU rally, he says that after the crowd worked itself into a frenzy with leftist sloganeering, “We drank our way to Harvard Square, where our disorderly parade deteriorated into a full-scale riot.” It went on through the night. After returning to campus early the next morning, Thomas became horrified: “I had let myself be swept up by an angry mob for no good reason other than that I, too, was angry.”
“In the whirlwind of irrational violence, the BSU students, he realized, had perpetuated an unwelcome stereotype, that of the angry black man. This anger was sanctioned. Thomas describes black students flagrantly violating the student code of conduct and making tall demands, only for the administration to cave every time.
“Black students also bonded through black-nationalist politics. Mixing radical politics with the entitlement mentality the administration encouraged quickly proved toxic. Already unprepared for living among whites, Thomas says, many of these unprepared black students gave up class in favor of drugs and “cultlike Eastern religions.” Others dropped or failed out.”
I did read it. None of it changes how horrible a person Clarence Thomas is. He and Alito don't even have a real judicial philosophy as much as they have a desire to take the country back to 1850.
I can’t resist posting this Far Side cartoon after the conversation we had, either here, or on the Pope Francis thread!
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
religion and politics are tied together— an inevitable outcome when discussing abortion and right to life.
Jamie made the decision to move the pope Thread to All Politics after a decade or so on the Main Forum. I had no objection at the time.
In our present contentious climate at home and abroad, one might agree that everything is politics.