The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#7,880
#7,880
Vol8188 said:
You're literally just making this up as you go. Do you have any sources for your claim that we were importing food out of charity?

We should also add that we were importing these items as early as 1935. So why were we importing the same foods that were telling farmers not to produce?
Click to expand...

@luthervol did you forget me already?

You were telling me about how we were only importing the same food that FDR was ordering us not to produce because of WWII, 4 years prior to WWII.

So how does that work?
 
#7,882
#7,882
Vol8188 said:
@luthervol did you forget me already?

You were telling me about how we were only importing the same food that FDR was ordering us not to produce because of WWII, 4 years prior to WWII.

So how does that work?
Click to expand...
FDR could easily see the winds of war blowing and as always wished to be proactive. Genius if you think about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#7,885
#7,885
luthervol said:
I'll give you this one. FDR's policies weren't always perfect.
Click to expand...

Less than perfect. They were horrific.

He literally banned people from getting raises which created our insane current health insurance system.

He paid farmers to burn food

He locked Japanese people into concentration camps

He was horrific.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, EasternVol and hog88
#7,888
#7,888
EasternVol said:
There are idiotic loons on both sides of the discussion. Yes she is unbelievable.
Click to expand...

When the president believes in no limits on abortion and is considered a moderate by the party, any bell curve would suggest she presents more than just a few loons
 
#7,890
#7,890
EasternVol said:
Surely she speaks for just a very very tiny fringe.
Click to expand...

Idk. The dehumanization of the act has been ongoing for awhile. If Biden is the center and supports what I think we would all have to call the extreme option (abortion until birth) there have to be x% of democrats on the other 2 sides of the center right?
 
#7,891
#7,891
Vol8188 said:
Idk. The dehumanization of the act has been ongoing for awhile. If Biden is the center and supports what I think we would all have to call the extreme option (abortion until birth) there have to be x% of democrats on the other 2 sides of the center right?
Click to expand...
I don't know Biden's position. But if his position is abortion until birth is ok, that leaves no room beyond. It's like hitting absolute zero.
 
#7,892
#7,892
EasternVol said:
I don't know Biden's position. But if his position is abortion until birth is ok, that leaves no room beyond. It's like hitting absolute zero.
Click to expand...

Yet he’s considered to be a moderate within the party. Obviously there’s room beyond given the stance of this individual in the video. Very little outcry on the left too regarding the Va Governor video about keeping a born child comfortable until a decision could be made
 
#7,893
#7,893
Vol8188 said:
Yet he’s considered to be a moderate within the party. Obviously there’s room beyond given the stance of this individual in the video. Very little outcry on the left too regarding the Va Governor video about keeping a born child comfortable until a decision could be made
Click to expand...
I took the large lady to be just a loudmouthed idiot who was not thinking about what she was saying. I think that if someone could get her to listen and discuss, and to walk her through the meanings in the conversation, that it would dawn on her that no women can't just snuff their kids.
I saw an explanation that Northam was speaking specifically about children born with no hope of function. I think that was earlier in this thread.
 
#7,894
#7,894
EasternVol said:
I took the large lady to be just a loudmouthed idiot who was not thinking about what she was saying. I think that if someone could get her to listen and discuss, and to walk her through the meanings in the conversation, that it would dawn on her that no women can't just snuff their kids.
I saw an explanation that Northam was speaking specifically about children born with no hope of function. I think that was earlier in this thread.
Click to expand...

Sure but there's always more than one loudmouth idiot and plenty of people vote on both sides without much thought. The after the fact explanation was that Northam was speaking specifically about children with no hope of living, on that I agree. But I would encourage you to rewatch the video and pay attention to the question he was answering. Viability was not mentioned by him nor the person asking the question. I can post a link if you need.
 
#7,895
#7,895
Vol8188 said:
Sure but there's always more than one loudmouth idiot and plenty of people vote on both sides without much thought. The after the fact explanation was that Northam was speaking specifically about children with no hope of living, on that I agree. But I would encourage you to rewatch the video and pay attention to the question he was answering. Viability was not mentioned by him nor the person asking the question. I can post a link if you need.
Click to expand...
A link would be appreciated if it's handy, thanks
 
#7,896
#7,896
EasternVol said:
A link would be appreciated if it's handy, thanks
Click to expand...

Start around 38 minutes. Focus on his exact phrasing. He never says "only non-viable". He refuses to place any limitations at all and even states it should be between the woman and the provider. Then goes on the explain how the woman would give birth, they would keep the child comfortable, and then a decision will be made. He says all of this while also saying he wants this decision to be between mother's and doctors not the men who are trying to control their bodies.

So the initial question isn't about viability. The law doesn't limit late term abortions based on viability. And he uses non comital phrases when explaining the process like "there may be deformities" or "there may be a fetus that's non viable" implying that the child may actually be healthy too. When speaking specifically about a law that would allow you to kill a child after birth the exact words and phrases you use are extremely important.

 
  • Like
Reactions: SuzyVol
#7,897
#7,897
Vol8188 said:
Start around 38 minutes. Focus on his exact phrasing. He never says "only non-viable". He refuses to place any limitations at all and even states it should be between the woman and the provider. Then goes on the explain how the woman would give birth, they would keep the child comfortable, and then a decision will be made. He says all of this while also saying he wants this decision to be between mother's and doctors not the men who are trying to control their bodies.

So the initial question isn't about viability. The law doesn't limit late term abortions based on viability. And he uses non comital phrases when explaining the process like "there may be deformities" or "there may be a fetus that's non viable" implying that the child may actually be healthy too. When speaking specifically about a law that would allow you to kill a child after birth the exact words and phrases you use are extremely important.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the link. I don't know what the law was at that time nor what was in Delegate Trans's bill to amend the law. But I took from Northam's comments that third trimester abortions were only allowed with the consent of the mother and two doctors and in cases of non-viability. I understood him to be opposed to reducing the number of doctors to sign off on the procedure. If he was weaseling I didn't catch it, and I am far from a fan of his.
 
#7,898
#7,898
EasternVol said:
Thank you for the link. I don't know what the law was at that time nor what was in Delegate Trans's bill to amend the law. But I took from Northam's comments that third trimester abortions were only allowed with the consent of the mother and two doctors and in cases of non-viability. I understood him to be opposed to reducing the number of doctors to sign off on the procedure. If he was weaseling I didn't catch it, and I am far from a fan of his.
Click to expand...

He did not specify that the child had to be non-viable nor was he asked about viability right?
 
#7,900
#7,900
EasternVol said:
Not in so many words. I took it as implied.
Click to expand...

Yet the question didn't specify it either. At a minimum he's guilty of speaking too loosely about a serious/sensitive topic. With all of that said, I don't think he actually supports abortion after birth. I'm not attempting to proclaim he does. Only that the way he laid his stance out does not exclude it and yet no one on the left seems to bat an eye.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top