jrodmc wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:
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.

Triple, as I said, I knew jumping into this thread was a bad idea. You get one or two (at most) BRIGG's type responders, and the rest ends up being just liberal braying to the blue donkey choir. I get it. For the most part, even in the Off-Topic forum, I don't bother to really engage.

For some reason, I don't get the argument that killing someone who's done nothing wrong but happen to start to exist is a woman's right. And you don't get any truly coherent answers to that, because there are none to be had. Which is why the rage on this issue has reached such toxic levels. Unless storming the capital of a state like Arizona by a bunch of what looked like crack-crazed zombies is something that's suddenly business as usual and completely justifiable. But that's a story for another day.

The days of Safe, Legal, and RARE are over, if they ever even actually existed, like much of what Bill Clinton "is" supposed to have stood for. You have a multi-billion dollar industry that has a huge stake in the current society's embrace of death. Most of Europe is more conservative on abortion than the US. Our culture is outraged at kids killing people with automatic weapons, but the John Wick movies and hundreds of other movies/games like it make billions, if not trillions of dollars. Sex sells everything, starting in elementary schools now, but unwanted pregnancy is just an inconvenience created by theocratic monoliths who are so passe it's painful. It's 2022, after all, it's not like we're back in ancient Greece or Rome where people just left infants to die, or sacrificed them on altars.

Anyway, Triple, I look forward to your next missive on our beloved FO's handling of the cap, contracts and why Randle doesn't even qualify as the scum of the earth.

LOL - you enter a thread and make mostly incoherent angry rants - then when confronted, whine about entering the thread because all those evil Libs mistreated you. Ladies & Gentlemen that is the true definition of a snowflake (come to think of it perhaps it should only be Gentleman as your religion may not allow you to view ladies as your equal?).

Perhaps your actual bible comes strait from Fox News? Didn't you proclaim Rupert Murdoch as one of your profits??

Insurrection at the US Capital on the work of your lord and savior MAGA Trump = OK
Insurrection at the Arizona Capital over SCOTUS ruling = Not OK

The $900 Million annual federal funding for Planned Parenthood which supports the abortion of potential human lives = Not OK
The $900 BILLION annual federal funding for the Military which supports the killing/bombing of human lives including many innocents = OK

Capitalism as long as it supports your politics, religion and world view = OK
Capitalism in industries that you dislike or when it inconveniences you or your worldview = Not OK

How many pounds of animal flesh do you eat a year....who were all living breathing things killed for your pleasure?
How much waste and pollution do you personally create which adversely impacts the health and lives of other living things - including humans?
When someone dies in a war - what do you do to stop it to ensure Human life is not lost?
When someone is shot and killed - what do you do to make change so that it stops happening and human life is not lost?

WWJD?

See how this works? You - sitting there on your condescending better than thou perch are just just like the rest of us - whether knowing or not.... a phucking hypocrite.

When you step on a tiny Ant and kill it - does it even leave any type of mark or stain on the bottom of your shoe? Poor Ant was working hard in a hard life of solely seeking out and bringing back food to feed the nest. But no worries as there are One Million Billion Ants on this Earth.

Compare that to the One Billion Trillion Stars in the Universe. That's the number of Ants on Earth followed by 9 more zeros. Take those number of stars multiplied by the number of living organisms on planets surrounding those stars, add in the billions of humans and living organisms on this earth.

What does this all mean? If you happened to be stepped on by some giant Alien - you would not even leave less than a Gazillion'th of a mark on the bottom of that Alien's shoe - when compared to the Ant mark left on your shoe. Not only that - but the worker Ant in fact would also have been a bigger loss to his society - not being able to bring food back to his nest vs. all the wasted lazy tired azz bloviating you've produced in this thread.

Am I being overly harsh. Yes. Do I give a Phuck about your snowflake feelings.....nope. Not to worry though - as all is not lost. Perhaps you can organize a group prayer on some local public High School 50 yard line and pray to God that your deepest wishes will come true and you'll be swept away into Heaven in the blink of an eye while all those evil "Libs" will remain to suffer 7 years of strife, disease and pestilence for a living hell on earth - just like a poorly made Left Behind plot.

Yeah, my incoherent angry rants. You're funny.

So net/net you're basic point is we are all phucking hypocrites. Got it. Thanks for clearing things up.

Correction to your interpretation. In the scope of the universe - we are all insignificant phucking hypocrites. To dictate the fate of someone else's zygote is to be so blinded by one's own view of self-importance. In other words - get your own phucking insignificant house in order before dictating your moral codes on others.

Does calling it a zygote or a fetus make you feel like you've got your phucking insignificant house in order? And just a question; is supporting abortion dictating a moral code on others, specifically on all those millions of zygotes and fetuses? And before you answer, try pondering on whether your answer is blinded by your own self-importance.

I'll try to stop responding to you after this post, since it becomes increasingly frustrating engaging someone who is either being purposely obtuse or who just has a lesser comprehension level.

What you can't seem to understand is that this debate has nothing to do with someone's individual view of abortion. For instance - on a personal level barring drastic circumstances - I would do whatever it took to avoid an Abortion related to my own family's circumstances. What you are arguing is really about some people's desire to impress their individual views on someone else's freedom to choose based on their circumstance and views. Those who might be overly self-important and judgy appear want to impress their own "code of ethics & morals" onto others. So in that sense - I'm not trying to be self-important - except to the point of people like you telling me and others what is right and what is wrong - based on your own self importance.

PS - For those Science Deniers sitting in the bleachers - "Zygote" is a scientific term (and yes - I'm a scientist) - nothing more / nothing less. It does not make me "feel" anything using the term Zygote. I don't get all caught up in emotional "feelings" using one term vs. another.

TripleThreat wrote:I'm OK with people having different views on this. I don't see my viewpoints as more prominent than someone else's. But I keep saying it and it's becoming glaringly obvious that the mainstream media is desperately trying to ignore one of the core issues - Democrats could have made moves to fix this long ago and they didn't do anything about it.

Charlamagne tries to play the middle a little bit here. But it's clear the only reason he's able to say something of this ( which is criticism of the Democratic Party) and not be "cancelled" is because he's a minority. And what does that say about free speech?

Just like the Reps could have fixed the fiscal deficit and the national debt many times, instead they chose time and again to let both baloon. I detest the Dems, but I have figured that if I cannot have my money anyway, at least I should have my rights, so I find myself voting for their candidates.

Voting in America has turned into a campaign of "we can't let this greater evil win the office".

wargames wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:I'm OK with people having different views on this. I don't see my viewpoints as more prominent than someone else's. But I keep saying it and it's becoming glaringly obvious that the mainstream media is desperately trying to ignore one of the core issues - Democrats could have made moves to fix this long ago and they didn't do anything about it.

Charlamagne tries to play the middle a little bit here. But it's clear the only reason he's able to say something of this ( which is criticism of the Democratic Party) and not be "cancelled" is because he's a minority. And what does that say about free speech?

Just like the Reps could have fixed the fiscal deficit and the national debt many times, instead they chose time and again to let both baloon. I detest the Dems, but I have figured that if I cannot have my money anyway, at least I should have my rights, so I find myself voting for their candidates.

Voting in America has turned into a campaign of "we can't let this greater evil win the office".

I think the democrats are going to get slaughtered too. Yesterday was a record low turnout and I actually did some canvassing for an assembly member and people we’re either mad, apathetic, or just disappointed in Democrats in office. It didn’t matter if it was a moderate or a progressive no one believes they are effective. Meanwhile Republicans are backwards but they actually believe their nonsense and are willing to cheat, lie, and steal to get it.

Interesting. I would have thought the SCOTUS decision should instead galvanize the Democratic electorate to not let the Reps have the votes in Congress to hold sway over future court nominations.

foosballnick wrote:I'll try to stop responding to you after this post, since it becomes increasingly frustrating engaging someone who is either being purposely obtuse or who just has a lesser comprehension level.

What you can't seem to understand is that this debate has nothing to do with someone's individual view of abortion....

H.R.3755 - Women's Health Protection Act of 2021

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755

The bill provides for:

A) Allowing abortions "up to the moment of birth". The majority of Americans don't support that.

B) Bans parental consent laws for minors having abortions. 70 percent of Americans oppose this.

C) Would automatically create "Rights For Non-Doctors" to perform abortions with the same legal protections of existing licensed physicians.

D) Prohibits laws banning "Sex-Selective Abortions." The majority of Americans don't support that.

E) Bans state laws from requiring a 24 hour wait period for abortions. 70 percent of Americans oppose this.

F) Bans laws requiring patients to be informed about alternatives to abortion. 80-85 percent of Americans oppose this.

G) Would force the respective states to allow for some abortions to be paid for with Medicaid.

H) Would automatically nullify every state's laws regarding abortion immediately. All of them. (Not every existing state abortion law is bad or lacks popular support)

I) Prevents doctors and hospitals from "opting out" of performing abortions for religious reasons.

Democrats have voted for this twice, gotten passed in the House of Representatives twice and had it fail in the Senate twice.

This is a big problem here and no one can blame Trump for this one. The Democrats are pushing a bill that they know will never pass. It's way too extreme.

Why are they trying to pass a bill that they know won't go anywhere? Because it allows the Democratic Party to do a lot of fundraising off of it. And gives them a platform and reason to say the Republicans oppose all women's rights. When the bill itself is actually pretty bull****. It's extremist. And most Americans aren't going to support it. But the Democratic Party is relying on people not actually reading the bill and understanding it, just push lots of talking points in the mainstream media.

Some of you here are clearly very liberal or Democrats, and I'm OK with that. We all love the Knicks, that's what matters to me. But if some of you guys wanted Roe to be federal law, then the Democratic Party really ****ed you guys over.

It appears they never had any intention of pushing a bill that would get bi-partisan support. Something more moderate. Most Americans support abortion in the first trimester, but as the time moves on towards birth, the support falls more and more because no one wants to feel guilty and complicit about the entire controversy of late term abortions.

ESOMKnicks wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:I'm OK with people having different views on this. I don't see my viewpoints as more prominent than someone else's. But I keep saying it and it's becoming glaringly obvious that the mainstream media is desperately trying to ignore one of the core issues - Democrats could have made moves to fix this long ago and they didn't do anything about it.

Charlamagne tries to play the middle a little bit here. But it's clear the only reason he's able to say something of this ( which is criticism of the Democratic Party) and not be "cancelled" is because he's a minority. And what does that say about free speech?

Just like the Reps could have fixed the fiscal deficit and the national debt many times, instead they chose time and again to let both baloon. I detest the Dems, but I have figured that if I cannot have my money anyway, at least I should have my rights, so I find myself voting for their candidates.

Voting in America has turned into a campaign of "we can't let this greater evil win the office".

Donald Trump said before he was elected, that if he was eventually elected, he would try to nominate as many Supreme Court Justices as he can and he hopes he has enough to overturn Roe V Wade and give the rights back to the states to make their own decisions about abortion laws.

He said it. He kept his word. He did it. I know many of you hate him here, but he did it.

Obama said the Freedom Of Choice Act was his first priority. Then he lied.

At some point, someone has to ask - Are Republicans doing their part to keep their promises to their voting base while Democrats are not?

You say, "at least I should have my rights"

When it comes to abortion, the people who supported the Democratic Party, watched their contributions and effort wasted. What "rights" did these American citizens have secured for them?

To me, sounds like you supported the Party that took you for granted and left you high and dry. Because it's more than obvious that Biden has no super secret grand plan right now.

50 years. The Democrats literally had a 50 year ****ing head start and they still ****ed it all up. Do you want to keep voting for them for another 50 years and hope they finally figure it out?

TripleThreat wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:I'm OK with people having different views on this. I don't see my viewpoints as more prominent than someone else's. But I keep saying it and it's becoming glaringly obvious that the mainstream media is desperately trying to ignore one of the core issues - Democrats could have made moves to fix this long ago and they didn't do anything about it.

Charlamagne tries to play the middle a little bit here. But it's clear the only reason he's able to say something of this ( which is criticism of the Democratic Party) and not be "cancelled" is because he's a minority. And what does that say about free speech?

Just like the Reps could have fixed the fiscal deficit and the national debt many times, instead they chose time and again to let both baloon. I detest the Dems, but I have figured that if I cannot have my money anyway, at least I should have my rights, so I find myself voting for their candidates.

Voting in America has turned into a campaign of "we can't let this greater evil win the office".

Donald Trump said before he was elected, that if he was eventually elected, he would try to nominate as many Supreme Court Justices as he can and he hopes he has enough to overturn Roe V Wade and give the rights back to the states to make their own decisions about abortion laws.

He said it. He kept his word. He did it. I know many of you hate him here, but he did it.

Obama said the Freedom Of Choice Act was his first priority. Then he lied.

At some point, someone has to ask - Are Republicans doing their part to keep their promises to their voting base while Democrats are not?

You say, "at least I should have my rights"

When it comes to abortion, the people who supported the Democratic Party, watched their contributions and effort wasted. What "rights" did these American citizens have secured for them?

To me, sounds like you supported the Party that took you for granted and left you high and dry. Because it's more than obvious that Biden has no super secret grand plan right now.

50 years. The Democrats literally had a 50 year ****ing head start and they still ****ed it all up. Do you want to keep voting for them for another 50 years and hope they finally figure it out?

Just trying to follow your thought process here. You're urging single issue Pro Choice / Abortion voters to not vote Democrat and vote for Trump because he kept promises to abolish Pro-Choice Abortion?

PS....ALL politicians and political parties fundraise on any issues they can make money on. Are you new to this?

TripleThreat wrote:Donald Trump said before he was elected, that if he was eventually elected, he would try to nominate as many Supreme Court Justices as he can and he hopes he has enough to overturn Roe V Wade and give the rights back to the states to make their own decisions about abortion laws.

He said it. He kept his word. He did it. I know many of you hate him here, but he did it.

Obama said the Freedom Of Choice Act was his first priority. Then he lied.

TripleThreat, I don't know how to communicate this better or with any less awkward or whatever voice. You have let us know that you do pro scouting for the NFL and I'd assume that at a base level your job is dependent on your abilities to take in information with your own eyes and also your ability to take in, filter, and assess the value of the information you are getting from ALL sources, and, most importantly, to knowingly (and continually) interpret/assess the value of each of your sources. I'm assuming in your world if you don't take in everything from every possible outlet and properly gauge each outlet deeply before you even get to the nitty gritty of the core of raw scouting, you KNOW you are going to fail at some level and at some point and most likely both.

Your sources of information in some of these off topic threads are not at the level you probably would accept in your own profession and you are both not assessing your own sources or exploring all of the sources you have at your disposal to get to the information you are looking for - and I try to separate that out from where you would fall on the spectrum of right to left. It boggles me that you haven't taken the same'ish skill set from one field and applied it to another but you aren't.

I'm assuming you take in a lot - your posts on your fav player scouting shows us your output and it seems volume high. You are missing out on a ton and then the way you build up your thought pattern is from a viewpoint that barely makes sense to me.

It's like you signed up for the MIT conference with man-date BRIGGS but both of your just sit at the bar and chat with the some of the attendee who come by and just rely on that. Maybe your hit up A session but that's it.

I mean, even Marv who is probably 7 martini's into this Wednesday night can see where and which direction your source if based off. It's in plain view and I'd assume you would fire any colleague who you were dependent on for your livelihood if they proceeded in the same manor.

Fire moving to entire neighborhood and blame is being passed from neighbor to neighbor for also not building their homes out of non flammable materials.

Area man perplexed and agrees to poll more arsonists and neighbors.

Jesus man

TripleThreat wrote:I'm bringing up actual legitimate context and issues on this topic.

Quite frankly, the only thing you are making clear is that you don't have a familiarity on how any of this works. Barely surface level stuff.

jrodmc wrote:
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.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/in-case-youre-wondering-nancy-pelosi-is-still-supporting-the-only-antiabortion-house-democrat

In Case You’re Wondering, Nancy Pelosi Is Still Supporting the Only Antiabortion House Democrat

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked why she is still supporting Representative Henry Cuellar, the conservative Texas Democrat whose house and campaign office were recently raided by the FBI, for reelection, and she said she is. Then, in a mind-boggling moment during Thursday’s press conference, Pelosi took the time to also remind everyone that in addition to the whole FBI thing that’s cast a shadow over Cuellar’s ethical standards, he’s also the lone antiabortion Democrat left in the House—a position one would think would leave a disqualifying black mark on a Democrat’s political résumé given the Supreme Court looks poised to overturn Roe v. Wade in the coming weeks.

But no, Pelosi, whose party and caucus sought to use abortion rights to motivate Americans to go to the polls this past week, said she’s backing him even though he’s anti-choice.

“I’m supporting Henry Cuellar, he’s a valued member of our caucus. The FBI has said he’s not under investigation,” Pelosi said first, before quipping, “I thought that you were going to take it to choice or something.”

“He is not pro-choice but we didn’t need him; we passed the bill with what we had,” Pelosi said. Cuellar was the lone Democrat to vote against the Women’s Health Protection Act when it passed the House last year. It failed this past week in the Senate in a vote of 49 to 51.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/BTnewsroom/status/1540762413464580096

Nancy Pelosi supports an open Pro Life Democrat in the House for reelection while asking liberal voters to ignore the fact that he is Pro Life and that the FBI just raided him.

Then she reads a poem and asks voters for 15 dollars so the Democrats can "finally" codify Roe v Wade or something similar into law, in part by winning the Mid Terms (i.e. making sure Pro Life leaning candidates don't get elected or win reelection, but that apparently only matters if they are Republicans....)

What's stopping the Democrats from trying to codify Roe or some measure very similar into federal law right now?

What stopped them before?

Meanwhile many liberals are fed up, so they started chanting at failed leftist candidate Beto O'Rourke - “Voting blue is not enough — Democrats, we call your bluff!”

Why is any of this surprising? If a lot of the public gives you money and their energy and their votes, and some of them for up to 50 years, to go do something about protecting abortion rights and implied women's rights, and you don't, then they are going to be angry. They'll be doubly angry once they realize the Party making the promises had multiple opportunities to do something and make real lasting change and all they did was more shouting in the media and the hand wringing and virtue signaling and fund raising.

jrodmc talks about issues that are hypocritically split as inflammatory or non-inflammatory based on partisan lines. What exactly is non-inflammatory, mind you to the Democrats own voter base no less, about -

"Pay Us To Do Nothing For You"

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1542509020891598848

It’s not a Radical Conservative court because the founding fathers wanted all of us to die due to global warming in anticipation of the Rapture…..

It’s explicitly says “you either get raptured or you die from fires and smoke due to global warming” in the constitution.

Jokes aside the SC is off the rails.