jrodmc wrote:

martin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yeah, praying before football games, that's some seriously dangerous ****. Maybe SC should pass some sort of laws or liberties that would get all these bible thumpers moved to camps or something, huh? Can't have junior praying to Jesus before he starts playing football. That could lead to some serious ****.

You have not described the essence of case correctly: The coach in this case was clearly making the prayer session mandatory; it was not opt out and he would just lead whomever wanted to join to join. To me, that is serious **** at a micro level.

At a macro level, this IS some serious **** too cause of the fall out: Lemon v. Kurtzman decision had previously governed cases involving the Constitution's language prohibiting "an establishment of religion," which has obvious implications for future lawsuits: Lower court judges will no longer apply Lemon’s framework to establishment clause cases.

Again, you don't seem to get the essence of the establishment clause. The SC is supposed to step in and make SURE THE US CONGRESS DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY LAW RELATED TO RELIGION. The aptly named Lemon test has been deemed bad law by most justices and a misadventure at best by liberal justices. Where the hell is the US Congress on a high school football field passing laws about religion? The coach lost his job. No player got cut. No one lost their lives. No one was told to sit in some atheists-only section of the field. If the state government wants to allow this coach to give communion and last rites to every player on his team, WGAF? Why do you GAF? Afraid somehow your precious billions of dollars of tax money might somehow get siphoned away from Planned Parenthood and end up being spent on bibles in high school? Afraid that everyone of this coach's players were going to become seminary students? Or maybe they might not do it on the regular anymore with their girlfriends after the games if they read about the Amorites slitting baby's throats and plastering them into the walls of their homes?

I love you martin as the proprietor of an incredibly great Knicks website, but your reasoning, both at the micro and the macro level here, is patent hypersensitive liberal bull****.

No one gives phuck, or at least should, give a phuck who you pray to. The only concern is that this public institution provides the same avenues for every other religion. If one group can do it, everyone else should be able to do it. And individuals should be able to sit out without fear of retribution if they don't want to do it. Where you this worked up when NFL players were getting mocked for wanting to kneel during the anthem? You'd think that no one would give a phuck, but that certainly wasn't the case.
Bottom line is that it's not appropriate for this coach to be coercing students into participating in group prayer sessions on a football field.

jrodmc wrote:

wargames wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

jrodmc wrote:It's all okay, I just saw a sign that says "Abortion is Healthcare!" Hopefully the stupid rightwing ****wits on the SC will create some rights (oh wait, are they supposed to create rights?) that will make the states provide tax money to cover all the abortions they deem legal.

A baby in the womb isn't a baby until... it can think that killing itself out of convenience and not being a tax burden on society is the only morally right thing to do.
And that jerking off is the same as ****ing. And that actually having children is a boon to stupid old white men who want all the jobs and all the money. Because that's what old white men do. Hey, none of this sounds slightly racist, or sexist, does it? No, of course not. Racism and sexism are only for white men, silly rabbit!

Republicans are all theocratic azzholes who base their morals on millenial-old books and old parchment documents written centuries ago by white men.

Democrats are all forward thinking progressives who base their morals on... our fabulously brilliant current society! And recent polls! And Slant! And the Huffington Post!

Oh look, a woman's right to kill her baby via dilation and evacuation is right there in the privacy clause in that stupid old parchment document that nobody should pay attention to anymore. Not that dissecting a bean with eyes should bother anyone who's sufficiently intelligent enough to decide who should live and who should die. Based on... something. Yeah, I think it's Aristotle. Oh wait, he was an old white man, wasn't he?

People still read HuffPo?

I think he was trying to make a parody but he came off as deranged and angry, but I prefer that. Keep it 100% and admit that your feelings is the only justification for your stance, not science, not law, and not some interpretation of the constitution. That way we can forego trying to debate you on this and see you as part of the radical conservative problem.

For example the same radical conservative court made some more radical conservative decision along the same radical conservative lines.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1514973864085839875

Keep in mind I played football for a Catholic Highschool and we didn’t do **** like this.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1541422119963267072

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1541421786759413760

But aren’t they suppose to uphold the separation of church and state in the constitution?!?! Isn’t that literally one of the basis of our democracy?!?!

No it’s the radical conservative court doing radical conservative **** because they are running unchecked and these things make them feel good instead of all the laws and liberties that make them feel bad.

The Establishment Clause, in case you or your hyper-psychotic tweeter Stern want to go actually read it, specifically says that all our federal republic (we don't live in a pure literal democracy btw) does in the case of religion is ensure that the Congress shall pass no law regarding religion. It doesn't say the SC is supposed to uphold the separation of church and state, which is in Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, not the US Constitution. The basis of our "democracy" was actually founded on the Declaration of Independence, which reads like a pretty damned (ha ha ha) religious document to me. People had bled and died for the "basis of our democracy" before the Constitituion even existed.

The 10th Amendment reserves to the States, anything NOT explicitly granted to the Federal government. Which was supposed to protect our "democracy" from an overreaching federal government. Like legislating from the bench on when and where to kill babies or when and where to pray.

I love when conservative sycophants bring up “the founders called us a republic” whenever they support something that goes against democracy… Did Bush say we were going into Iraq to bring them a Republic… or would that have confused the issue and messed up the messaging.

Also your same argument can be used for every social program this country has seen from interracial marriage, to gay marriage, to the end of segregation. This idea that the court shouldn’t dictate social programs from the bench is nonsense. Specifically because of the many times the court goes against a earlier decision to find a new one.

Now you want to say the basis of our democracy is the Declaration of Independence… so the supremes court is supposed to interpret that too when making decisions? Is that where these radical conservative decisions are coming from. The document that basically says (1) God made all men (let’s pretend women…) equal and gave them the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; (2) the main business of government is to protect these rights; (3) if a government tries to withhold these rights, the people are free to revolt and to set up a new government. That’s the hill your trying to stand your argument on.

Also your whole argument about the 10th amendment ignores the 14th amendment 1) The right not to have one's personal matters disclosed or publicized; the right to be left alone. 2) The right against undue government intrusion into fundamental personal issues and decisions. Telling someone they have to have a baby is government intrusion on that woman’s personal issue and decisions. I can’t think of a more personal decision than that and your argument to do it is just another form of Fascism. Will they arrest a rape victim if they think she is going to cross state boundaries to get an abortion?

The more we go back and forth on this the angrier I get because it keeps becoming clearer how un-American this decision is. This is fully Christians overstepping their bounds. Even if it aligns with my faith that isn’t the basis of America. We can’t change the decision but it’s total bull**** to try to justify it as anything but a activist radical conservative court dictating policy from the bench. It’s funny because the level of hypocrisy being shown since it’s been decades of conservatives projecting this onto the Democrats.

martin wrote:Yeah I don't operate at the inflammatory level that you seem to spout off on in these types of threads.

For the rest of everyone, the below offered is lacking in any real purpose.

jrodmc wrote:

martin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yeah, praying before football games, that's some seriously dangerous ****. Maybe SC should pass some sort of laws or liberties that would get all these bible thumpers moved to camps or something, huh? Can't have junior praying to Jesus before he starts playing football. That could lead to some serious ****.

You have not described the essence of case correctly: The coach in this case was clearly making the prayer session mandatory; it was not opt out and he would just lead whomever wanted to join to join. To me, that is serious **** at a micro level.

At a macro level, this IS some serious **** too cause of the fall out: Lemon v. Kurtzman decision had previously governed cases involving the Constitution's language prohibiting "an establishment of religion," which has obvious implications for future lawsuits: Lower court judges will no longer apply Lemon’s framework to establishment clause cases.

Again, you don't seem to get the essence of the establishment clause. The SC is supposed to step in and make SURE THE US CONGRESS DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY LAW RELATED TO RELIGION. The aptly named Lemon test has been deemed bad law by most justices and a misadventure at best by liberal justices. Where the hell is the US Congress on a high school football field passing laws about religion? The coach lost his job. No player got cut. No one lost their lives. No one was told to sit in some atheists-only section of the field. If the state government wants to allow this coach to give communion and last rites to every player on his team, WGAF? Why do you GAF? Afraid somehow your precious billions of dollars of tax money might somehow get siphoned away from Planned Parenthood and end up being spent on bibles in high school? Afraid that everyone of this coach's players were going to become seminary students? Or maybe they might not do it on the regular anymore with their girlfriends after the games if they read about the Amorites slitting baby's throats and plastering them into the walls of their homes?

I love you martin as the proprietor of an incredibly great Knicks website, but your reasoning, both at the micro and the macro level here, is patent hypersensitive liberal bull****.

Jrod, perhaps you missed this in your first year of law school but the plain reading of the First Amendment applying only to acts of Congress has not been the standard applied by any court in over 100 years. You will find zero support for that position in any court, anywhere. It applies to all acts of 'government'.

Furthermore, I am with Martin on this. The standard is not why do I GAF if a coach leads a prayer at the 50 yard line, its whether the kids in the photo have the opportunity to not participate without feeling put upon at all - in any manner. Coach has a church to go pray in and any interested parties may join coach in said church. I will support coach's free exercise of that right in his individual capacity. But Coach receives a check from a government entity and all students must attend school -- to the extent that students feel compelled in any manner to attend a prayer circle to participate in a school sponsored activity I have a real problem with. Even after the kids are no longer joining him, the question becomes whether using the 50 yard line in response to school board objections gave the board a right to fire Coach.

We use the term "prayer" as loosely as possible here, but what is the content of that prayer? Westboro Baptist prayers are probably a bit different than the stuff I grew up with. Not sure where this Coach lies on the religious spectrum, but it shouldn't be incumbent on kids to investigate the religious beliefs of their football coach before endeavoring to play on the gridiron. Its inappropriate and an undue burden on the kids, where the converse, that Coach does his praying in church or anywhere else he sees fit without the authority and title of Coach on it, that's fine.

The issue with the Lemon Test was not that it was "bad law" but rather that it left too much subjectivity to give clear guidance. One judge might find the burden of religion "undue" while another might find it acceptable. This leads to conflicting opinions.

The issue today is how the Establishment clause interacts with the free exercise clause. And the court did a terrible job of making that clear. They appear to prioritize the rights of Coach to pray on the 50 yard line over the rights of the government body from endorsing religion.

So, tomorrow, Coach can go back to praying on the 50 yard line. The day after, maybe we are wearing crosses on our helmets for each tackle we make? I personally think a clearer line is better - all or none.

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:Yeah I don't operate at the inflammatory level that you seem to spout off on in these types of threads.

For the rest of everyone, the below offered is lacking in any real purpose.

jrodmc wrote:

martin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yeah, praying before football games, that's some seriously dangerous ****. Maybe SC should pass some sort of laws or liberties that would get all these bible thumpers moved to camps or something, huh? Can't have junior praying to Jesus before he starts playing football. That could lead to some serious ****.

You have not described the essence of case correctly: The coach in this case was clearly making the prayer session mandatory; it was not opt out and he would just lead whomever wanted to join to join. To me, that is serious **** at a micro level.

At a macro level, this IS some serious **** too cause of the fall out: Lemon v. Kurtzman decision had previously governed cases involving the Constitution's language prohibiting "an establishment of religion," which has obvious implications for future lawsuits: Lower court judges will no longer apply Lemon’s framework to establishment clause cases.

Again, you don't seem to get the essence of the establishment clause. The SC is supposed to step in and make SURE THE US CONGRESS DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY LAW RELATED TO RELIGION. The aptly named Lemon test has been deemed bad law by most justices and a misadventure at best by liberal justices. Where the hell is the US Congress on a high school football field passing laws about religion? The coach lost his job. No player got cut. No one lost their lives. No one was told to sit in some atheists-only section of the field. If the state government wants to allow this coach to give communion and last rites to every player on his team, WGAF? Why do you GAF? Afraid somehow your precious billions of dollars of tax money might somehow get siphoned away from Planned Parenthood and end up being spent on bibles in high school? Afraid that everyone of this coach's players were going to become seminary students? Or maybe they might not do it on the regular anymore with their girlfriends after the games if they read about the Amorites slitting baby's throats and plastering them into the walls of their homes?

I love you martin as the proprietor of an incredibly great Knicks website, but your reasoning, both at the micro and the macro level here, is patent hypersensitive liberal bull****.

Jrod, perhaps you missed this in your first year of law school but the plain reading of the First Amendment applying only to acts of Congress has not been the standard applied by any court in over 100 years. You will find zero support for that position in any court, anywhere. It applies to all acts of 'government'.

Furthermore, I am with Martin on this. The standard is not why do I GAF if a coach leads a prayer at the 50 yard line, its whether the kids in the photo have the opportunity to not participate without feeling put upon at all - in any manner. Coach has a church to go pray in and any interested parties may join coach in said church. I will support coach's free exercise of that right in his individual capacity. But Coach receives a check from a government entity and all students must attend school -- to the extent that students feel compelled in any manner to attend a prayer circle to participate in a school sponsored activity I have a real problem with. Even after the kids are no longer joining him, the question becomes whether using the 50 yard line in response to school board objections gave the board a right to fire Coach.

We use the term "prayer" as loosely as possible here, but what is the content of that prayer? Westboro Baptist prayers are probably a bit different than the stuff I grew up with. Not sure where this Coach lies on the religious spectrum, but it shouldn't be incumbent on kids to investigate the religious beliefs of their football coach before endeavoring to play on the gridiron. Its inappropriate and an undue burden on the kids, where the converse, that Coach does his praying in church or anywhere else he sees fit without the authority and title of Coach on it, that's fine.

The issue with the Lemon Test was not that it was "bad law" but rather that it left too much subjectivity to give clear guidance. One judge might find the burden of religion "undue" while another might find it acceptable. This leads to conflicting opinions.

The issue today is how the Establishment clause interacts with the free exercise clause. And the court did a terrible job of making that clear. They appear to prioritize the rights of Coach to pray on the 50 yard line over the rights of the government body from endorsing religion.

So, tomorrow, Coach can go back to praying on the 50 yard line. The day after, maybe we are wearing crosses on our helmets for each tackle we make? I personally think a clearer line is better - all or none.

If we replaced "United States" with "Russia" imagine the comments you'd hear from people here at the thought of Russians making their kids recite this. I'm sorry, but this type of stuff doesn't belong in schools. And not to open pandora's box, I don't know why the national anthem needs to be sung before sporting events. But that's another issue for another day.

Kneel for the anthem - cool.
Kneel for prayer - uncool. And leads to violence. Just like Al Quaeda.

Reciting the national anthem is akin to Soviet Communism.

A kidney is the same as a baby.

Inflammatory -- any worldview based on Judeo-Christian ethics.
Non-inflammatory -- worldviews based on "what I personally think"

I knew this thread was going to be pretty much one-sided at the start, but reading all the "real & purposeful" 'logic' in here is actually just depressing.

Peace out.

Welpee wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:Yeah I don't operate at the inflammatory level that you seem to spout off on in these types of threads.

For the rest of everyone, the below offered is lacking in any real purpose.

jrodmc wrote:

martin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yeah, praying before football games, that's some seriously dangerous ****. Maybe SC should pass some sort of laws or liberties that would get all these bible thumpers moved to camps or something, huh? Can't have junior praying to Jesus before he starts playing football. That could lead to some serious ****.

You have not described the essence of case correctly: The coach in this case was clearly making the prayer session mandatory; it was not opt out and he would just lead whomever wanted to join to join. To me, that is serious **** at a micro level.

At a macro level, this IS some serious **** too cause of the fall out: Lemon v. Kurtzman decision had previously governed cases involving the Constitution's language prohibiting "an establishment of religion," which has obvious implications for future lawsuits: Lower court judges will no longer apply Lemon’s framework to establishment clause cases.

Again, you don't seem to get the essence of the establishment clause. The SC is supposed to step in and make SURE THE US CONGRESS DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY LAW RELATED TO RELIGION. The aptly named Lemon test has been deemed bad law by most justices and a misadventure at best by liberal justices. Where the hell is the US Congress on a high school football field passing laws about religion? The coach lost his job. No player got cut. No one lost their lives. No one was told to sit in some atheists-only section of the field. If the state government wants to allow this coach to give communion and last rites to every player on his team, WGAF? Why do you GAF? Afraid somehow your precious billions of dollars of tax money might somehow get siphoned away from Planned Parenthood and end up being spent on bibles in high school? Afraid that everyone of this coach's players were going to become seminary students? Or maybe they might not do it on the regular anymore with their girlfriends after the games if they read about the Amorites slitting baby's throats and plastering them into the walls of their homes?

I love you martin as the proprietor of an incredibly great Knicks website, but your reasoning, both at the micro and the macro level here, is patent hypersensitive liberal bull****.

Jrod, perhaps you missed this in your first year of law school but the plain reading of the First Amendment applying only to acts of Congress has not been the standard applied by any court in over 100 years. You will find zero support for that position in any court, anywhere. It applies to all acts of 'government'.

Furthermore, I am with Martin on this. The standard is not why do I GAF if a coach leads a prayer at the 50 yard line, its whether the kids in the photo have the opportunity to not participate without feeling put upon at all - in any manner. Coach has a church to go pray in and any interested parties may join coach in said church. I will support coach's free exercise of that right in his individual capacity. But Coach receives a check from a government entity and all students must attend school -- to the extent that students feel compelled in any manner to attend a prayer circle to participate in a school sponsored activity I have a real problem with. Even after the kids are no longer joining him, the question becomes whether using the 50 yard line in response to school board objections gave the board a right to fire Coach.

We use the term "prayer" as loosely as possible here, but what is the content of that prayer? Westboro Baptist prayers are probably a bit different than the stuff I grew up with. Not sure where this Coach lies on the religious spectrum, but it shouldn't be incumbent on kids to investigate the religious beliefs of their football coach before endeavoring to play on the gridiron. Its inappropriate and an undue burden on the kids, where the converse, that Coach does his praying in church or anywhere else he sees fit without the authority and title of Coach on it, that's fine.

The issue with the Lemon Test was not that it was "bad law" but rather that it left too much subjectivity to give clear guidance. One judge might find the burden of religion "undue" while another might find it acceptable. This leads to conflicting opinions.

The issue today is how the Establishment clause interacts with the free exercise clause. And the court did a terrible job of making that clear. They appear to prioritize the rights of Coach to pray on the 50 yard line over the rights of the government body from endorsing religion.

So, tomorrow, Coach can go back to praying on the 50 yard line. The day after, maybe we are wearing crosses on our helmets for each tackle we make? I personally think a clearer line is better - all or none.

I wonder how many people are old enough to remember at one time we were forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day in school. In case you don't know what that is we were forced to say: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

If we replaced "United States" with "Russia" imagine the comments you'd hear from people here at the thought of Russians making their kids recite this. I'm sorry, but this type of stuff doesn't belong in schools. And not to open pandora's box, I don't know why the national anthem needs to be sung before sporting events. But that's another issue for another day.

It's still a requirement. My wife teaches elementary school and my son is in high school and finished his junior year. I believe it's still a requirement in something like 47 states but that doesn't mean that the separation of church and state is being violated. The coach is free to say a prayer whenever he wants but requiring his players to attend said prayer is a clear violation.

jrodmc wrote:Too funny. Not really, but sort of.

Kneel for the anthem - cool.
Kneel for prayer - uncool. And leads to violence. Just like Al Quaeda.

Reciting the national anthem is akin to Soviet Communism.

A kidney is the same as a baby.

Inflammatory -- any worldview based on Judeo-Christian ethics.
Non-inflammatory -- worldviews based on "what I personally think"

I knew this thread was going to be pretty much one-sided at the start, but reading all the "real & purposeful" 'logic' in here is actually just depressing.

Peace out.

CashMoney wrote:

martin wrote:

CashMoney wrote:My stance is that killing the life prior to the life becoming a human being isn't right. You feel that it is right because life is not yet a human being.

We can agree to disagree.

If you are OK with agreeing to disagree, are you OK with a woman deciding for herself when that point of human starts or are you of the side of making that decision for other woman?

In the same vein, would you be comfortable for me deciding how YOU and your family should make some other decisions regarding life because of how my stances are?

My stance has nothing to do with reality. Abortion is the end of life. I've lived in New York my entire life and will probably never leave. Abortion here will continue whether I like it or not. I'm not okay with anyone deciding when to end a life that will become a human being but it's not up to me. I have my beliefs and opinions as everyone else does. Of course, I would not be comfortable with you making decisions in my life as you wouldn't be with me making decisions in your life.

Fair response. Thanks.

Although I don't agree with you, I do appreciate you taking the time to share your opinions and responding to others. And especially in the manor and voice you have taken.

jrodmc wrote:Too funny. Not really, but sort of.

Kneel for the anthem - cool.
Kneel for prayer - uncool. And leads to violence. Just like Al Quaeda.

Reciting the national anthem is akin to Soviet Communism.

A kidney is the same as a baby.

Inflammatory -- any worldview based on Judeo-Christian ethics.
Non-inflammatory -- worldviews based on "what I personally think"

I knew this thread was going to be pretty much one-sided at the start, but reading all the "real & purposeful" 'logic' in here is actually just depressing.

Peace out.

While running for President - "The first thing I'll do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

After being actually elected to President - "The Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority."

Obama had the numbers in Congress to make Roe V Wade into federal law. Then this argument would all be over now. At least the part about overturning Roe v Wade.

But he lied and he didn't do his part to help, as some people here say, "save the rights of all women"

jrod, I've said this before. I don't think politics in the General Discussion area of UK is a great idea. But it's not my board and it's not my site. They can run it as they want to do it. But I barely post anymore and I'm a damn good basketball analyst. People can assess if Briggs really posts the way he did before ( And people can gauge for themselves if they see that as good or bad. Personally I love my old friend Briggs and I believe Mo' Briggs = Mo' Money ) Then the question arise if the salty taste in your mouth here will make you post less too. I don't see how talking about politics in here brings together our shared love for our Knicks.

The real test on "one sided" is if all the people here enraged at Roe being overturned will openly start laying some of that blame (I'd call it more than a lions share honestly, but to each their own viewpoint) onto Obama. Because who are we kidding, in the all the years I've been here, it's like Obama is some kind of new age personal deity.

And before someone starts jumping on me, I am perfectly OK with a woman having an abortion if she wants to go get one. Her life, her issue, her health, her choice, her problem. Though I prefer what Bill Clinton said about the topic ( odd how a guy accused of rape so many times had a poignant thing to say about women's rights...) - Safe, legal and very rare. I'll add another distinction on that which is I don't want my tax dollars, or Briggs' tax dollars or your tax dollars, jrod, paying for it if we are dealing with consensual sex.

I'd like to think that's more than fair. If you choose to go have sex as a legal adult using informed consent, it's on you and your accountability (and your partner's accountability) to pay for it yourself if something goes the way you don't want.

TripleThreat wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Too funny. Not really, but sort of.

Kneel for the anthem - cool.
Kneel for prayer - uncool. And leads to violence. Just like Al Quaeda.

Reciting the national anthem is akin to Soviet Communism.

A kidney is the same as a baby.

Inflammatory -- any worldview based on Judeo-Christian ethics.
Non-inflammatory -- worldviews based on "what I personally think"

I knew this thread was going to be pretty much one-sided at the start, but reading all the "real & purposeful" 'logic' in here is actually just depressing.

Peace out.

While running for President - "The first thing I'll do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

After being actually elected to President - "The Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority."

Obama had the numbers in Congress to make Roe V Wade into federal law. Then this argument would all be over now. At least the part about overturning Roe v Wade.

But he lied and he didn't do his part to help, as some people here say, "save the rights of all women"

jrod, I've said this before. I don't think politics in the General Discussion area of UK is a great idea. But it's not my board and it's not my site. They can run it as they want to do it. But I barely post anymore and I'm a damn good basketball analyst. People can assess if Briggs really posts the way he did before ( And people can gauge for themselves if they see that as good or bad. Personally I love my old friend Briggs and I believe Mo' Briggs = Mo' Money ) Then the question arise if the salty taste in your mouth here will make you post less too. I don't see how talking about politics in here brings together our shared love for our Knicks.

The real test on "one sided" is if all the people here enraged at Roe being overturned will openly start laying some of that blame (I'd call it more than a lions share honestly, but to each their own viewpoint) onto Obama. Because who are we kidding, in the all the years I've been here, it's like Obama is some kind of new age personal deity.

And before someone starts jumping on me, I am perfectly OK with a woman having an abortion if she wants to go get one. Her life, her issue, her health, her choice, her problem. Though I prefer what Bill Clinton said about the topic ( odd how a guy accused of rape so many times had a poignant thing to say about women's rights...) - Safe, legal and very rare. I'll add another distinction on that which is I don't want my tax dollars, or Briggs' tax dollars or your tax dollars, jrod, paying for it if we are dealing with consensual sex.

I'd like to think that's more than fair. If you choose to go have sex as a legal adult using informed consent, it's on you and your accountability (and your partner's accountability) to pay for it yourself if something goes the way you don't want.

Not Obama. Hillary and the Democratic leadership panel. Their abrogation of the democratic process using superdelegates to force the nomination of Hillary over other more qualified candidates paves the way for Trump and his populist agenda to steamroll the 2016 election, leading to 3 seat changes on the Supreme Court. I can't predict who the non-Hillary nominee would have been, but I doubt it would have been Hillary without the defects in that process.