Roe v. Wade is going down
- Thread starter Al-O-Meter
- Start date
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
I see what you did there. You took my joke and substituted the more inclusive term 'spouse' in place of the gendered term 'wife' so that we can all laugh at the joke. It isn't that the political left has completely lost their sense of humor but they prefer a wording that is broader. I do want to learn how to be funny to those on the political left. Can you show me how you would reword this bit to bring it up to date?
Fortunately for me I already know how to be funny to right wingers.
First you take the name of something you don't like, such as the main stream media and then you just switch up the name a little and call them the lame stream media. It's so funny I might die. Or you see and inclusive group of people and that they refer to their community as the LGBTQIA+ and then you call the people in that group "alphabet people." Zing! Got 'em. Or you take a regular word like the government and you instead call it the gobberment. Whew, let me catch my breath already! Too funny. I haven't had this many laughs since pre-school.
First you take the name of something you don't like, such as the main stream media and then you just switch up the name a little and call them the lame stream media. It's so funny I might die. Or you see and inclusive group of people and that they refer to their community as the LGBTQIA+ and then you call the people in that group "alphabet people." Zing! Got 'em. Or you take a regular word like the government and you instead call it the gobberment. Whew, let me catch my breath already! Too funny. I haven't had this many laughs since pre-school.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Do you think it would be less funny if it were about heterosexual necrophiliacs, or just necrophiliacs generally? Or, is the fear of having a penis in your butt essential for the humor of the bit to you?
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Yes. Thank you!
We Didn’t think it would be possible without serious medical help (some treatments would be illegal/will be illegal in some red states). We’re playing in day to day. My wife has been pretty sick lately but she’s pushing through. We went through a rough patch where she couldn’t eat much. She’s doing better. We’re on week 9 now
The real fear begins after birth. Six months of worrying that a butterfly's wings will give you child an incurable disease. You'll make it. Almost all of us do.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Analysis-After abortion, conservative U.S. justices take aim at other precedents
The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority has shown in its blockbuster abortion ruling and other high-profile decisions in recent days that it is fearless when it comes to overturning - and even ignoring - historic precedents. And the conservative justices, with a 6-3 majority, may just be...
From the comments: having 9 people decide these issues for >300,000,000 is barbaric. The fact that they are now a partisan court, they should not be appointed, but elected with term limits.
Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Yep, I only had to go through 2 or 3 before I found one worth keeping!
Keefe
Well-Known Member
I hope so.
Keefe
Well-Known Member
Analysis-After abortion, conservative U.S. justices take aim at other precedents
The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority has shown in its blockbuster abortion ruling and other high-profile decisions in recent days that it is fearless when it comes to overturning - and even ignoring - historic precedents. And the conservative justices, with a 6-3 majority, may just be...www.yahoo.com
From the comments: having 9 people decide these issues for >300,000,000 is barbaric. The fact that they are now a partisan court, they should not be appointed, but elected with term limits.
Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
Couldn’t agree more. It’s so easy to manipulate a handful of people. Or less. To get them to do what you want. But hey, let our whole country ride on them. It’s like watching a boxing match where the outcome is obvious (the way the SC vote should go) and yet judges are bought off and the other dude wins.
Safetydan
Well-Known Member
You're already funny to the left, friend.
Safetydan
Well-Known Member
"I identify as a helicopter"
Safetydan
Well-Known Member
The only justification of this from a leftist perspective is the attempt at some sort of accelerationism. withholding votes and donations from the dems serves to make things worse, quicker. This, theoretically, could result in some sort of revolution. But this ignores the lives trampled along the way and isn't a good mode of operating IMO.
"The squad" does their best to wield the limited influence they have, and due to being your biggest allies in congress at the moment, they're the least of our problems. Like I said before, outside of unionizing and propagandizing, you need to do your best at changing the democratic party from within on a local and state level first. It's the only path forward.
What the court did, was say that the prior cases by the Court basically created new legislation from the judicial branch that created a new right to privacy that wasn't in the Constitution, and the court didn't have the authority to create that law or to decide what should apply to 300,000,000, but instead, should be up to the people/legislature. The court is actually reigning in the power they gave themselves and giving it back to the people to decide.Analysis-After abortion, conservative U.S. justices take aim at other precedents
The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority has shown in its blockbuster abortion ruling and other high-profile decisions in recent days that it is fearless when it comes to overturning - and even ignoring - historic precedents. And the conservative justices, with a 6-3 majority, may just be...
From the comments: having 9 people decide these issues for >300,000,000 is barbaric. The fact that they are now a partisan court, they should not be appointed, but elected with term limits.
Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
So while the immediate impact with abortion may seem like a bad thing to many, having courts only interpret the law before them, and not making up new laws seems to be the correct approach, simply because we do not want 9 non elected people making up new laws that we are bound by.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
If you think all this court is doing and has done is interpret the law before them and not make up new laws with their interpretations, how do you explain this?
Vaccines:
View: https://twitter.com/dohamadani/status/1542639727026884610?s=21&t=C0D1SdQnnvs_cUjr8r1bVQ
Is Thomas merely interpreting the law here? Be honest.
EPA:
The Supreme Court's EPA ruling is a big setback for fighting climate change, but not a death knell
The Supreme Court limited the ability of the EPA to fight climate change in a landmark ruling. But regulators still have many tools in their arsenal.
www.cnbc.com
What’s the point of the EPA then? If the American EPA can’t regulate the air in America, what’s the entire pt of this agency? LOL
Gun control:
Supreme Court Strikes Down New York Law Limiting Guns in Public
The decision, based on a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment, will make it harder for states and localities to restrict guns outside the home.
This is literally a completely different take than 200+ years of Supreme Court justices have had.
Psss Burger wasn’t a liberal…
Warren E. Burger - Wikipedia
Is Alito merely interpreting the law or waging his cultural and political grievances here?
Recent Historic Examples
It’s not just this most recent session that has made **** up. Check out the gutting of the VRA.
Voting Rights:
Supreme Court guts key part of landmark Voting Rights Act
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday gutted a core part of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act and challenged Congress to come up with a replacement plan to protect blacks and other minorities in places where discrimination still persists rather than target former slaveholding states in the South.
www.reuters.com
This might be the best case showing how the Supreme Court just makes **** up. Prior to this case, southern states with a history of discrimination had to clear with the DOJ changes to rules and regulations effecting elections. The whole point of this law was to proactively prevent states with histories of discrimination from discriminating against its black citizens. This is literally what MLK marched for. Like that’s the entire point of the damn legislation. So black people wouldn’t be ****ed out of voting and out of power come election time. And the court made **** up by saying:
Yep. As the last seven years have proven, racism and discrimination, especially in the south, is definitely dead…
Now, the DOJ has to prove that the new rules and laws have been discriminatory. And if the DOJ is headed by a Republican, why would they pursue cases against fellow republicans? Especially if the discrimination helps them stay in power?
Is this really what Kennedy and later LBJ and MLK had in mind when this law was advocated for and passed?
Campaign Finance:
Citizens United Explained
The 2010 Supreme Court decision further tilted political influence toward wealthy donors and corporations.
Yep. Money is free speech. Anyone from oligarchs in Russia to billionaires in Kansas can influence American politics disproportionately and secretly with their money. It’s exactly what common sense advocates for.
It’s fine to admit that you like the recent rulings without making it sound like they are more virtuous than before. You don’t need to put them on a pedestal just because you agree with them. They’re doing the same stuff that has been done before. It’s more extreme and out of sync with the majority of what Americans believe. But they’re doing what has been done before. Just admit that you agree with their politics.
Last edited:
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.
As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.
Gotta love this from the comments section: Again, according to them, a 10 year old girl can't understand the concept of sex and gender education, can't read any books about racism and slavery, but can be forced to give birth and become a mother. Just take a moment and think about this.
Also, you have to be 21 years old to adopt a baby. But a 10 year old should definitely be forced into being a mother.
Last edited:
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
The tyranny of the minority. The tyranny of the individual state is a reoccurring event throughout American history. Whether it’s slavery, Jim Crow, Mormon Extermination Acts, or this.
View: https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1542547500342693891?s=21&t=3nQgdqYTwUS58iVGY4zvhQ
Sigh, I wish we had a federal government that could protect citizens from the tyranny of the individual state.
View: https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1542547500342693891?s=21&t=3nQgdqYTwUS58iVGY4zvhQ
Sigh, I wish we had a federal government that could protect citizens from the tyranny of the individual state.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Sure, your pregnant 12 year old might have to carry her uncle’s baby to term. Sure, she might even be shot at while doing math in class. But at least now she won’t have to see books with rainbows on the cover or hear history about blacks people being enslaved!A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.
As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.
Gotta love this from the comments section: Again, according to them, a 10 year old girl can't understand the concept of sex and gender education, can't read any books about racism and slavery, but can be forced to give birth and become a mother. Just take a moment and think about this.
Also, you have to be 21 years old to adopt a baby. But a 10 year old should definitely be forced into being a mother.
Republicans, protecting us from America’s biggest problems!
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Pro life! She writes for The Federalist and has over 50,000 followers on Twitter
View: https://twitter.com/libbyemmons/status/1543200559242641408?s=21&t=j7arkgoXaxI-yeruBch4OQ
The cruelty is the point.
View: https://twitter.com/libbyemmons/status/1543200559242641408?s=21&t=j7arkgoXaxI-yeruBch4OQ
The cruelty is the point.