Supreme Court appears poised to expand gun rights and restrict abortion in this term

[JakeStarkey]

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/FXD4FzTH3BWbts3t4vbZqA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTE5MjtoPTQwO2NmPXdlYnA-/https://s.yimg.com/os/creatr-uploaded-images/2020-11/9d5ef240-2b77-11eb-ab7d-84e86b0eaba3 (https://www.latimes.com/)
I find this very interesting. Guns and liberalization does not bother me: I am a gun owner and have been all my life. What the millenial and zed women will do with the vote to the GOP if SCOTUS seriously restricts abortion will change the political and social course of the US.

https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-appears-poised-expand-120017213.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

[darin]

It's dishonest to say they are 'poised' to do something. From the link:


"The Supreme Court is set to expand gun rights and restrict abortion rights in a new term that begins Monday"

That is line of text intended to generate outrage. It's simply not true.


What is true is: "The court will rule on Gun rights and States' rights to decide limits abortion".


But the author wants outrage because outrage means clicks which mean advertising dollars.


As an aside - If the court can allow the govt to regulate vaccinations and smoking and all that - they should allow the govt to regulate abortions.

[JakeStarkey]

Only your outrage perhaps.

Gun rights are safe with both liberal and conservative members' votes.

The younger female voter (45 and under) will determine the future of the GOP is Roe v. Wade is seriously restricted or even thrown out.

If you are concerned about the use of 'outrage' (sensationalization?), go look at Breitbart and infowars for great examples of such.

[Gunny]

Not so sure on the Women's Rights thing. They can't even have their own sports anymore because of the left.

I don't foresee this issue doing anything but harm to the right. It's telling people what they can and can't do. As we have seen with the Biden vaccine mandate, people aren't real keen on that.

I'm against abortion, have and will vote against it. There IS a right and wrong here. That said, people can consign themselves to Hell by whatever means they wish so long as they don't interfere with me.

What will be intersting to see is how the Supreme Court rules, IF any cases even get there, and why they rule the way they do. The latter won't mean crap to most, especially the left. It's rule in my favor or the Supreme Court has to go for them. Anything that favors the Right is abuse of power by a conservative court.

[JakeStarkey]

I am not sure that this SCOTUS (as Big Government progressive as it is with its left and right wings) will defer to the pro-choice crowd.

If they do, that further empowers the motivation and enthusiasm of the pro-life gang, which helps the GOP.

If they don't, that will help the Democratic Party.

[darin]

Only your outrage perhaps.

Gun rights are safe with both liberal and conservative members' votes.

The younger female voter (45 and under) will determine the future of the GOP is Roe v. Wade is seriously restricted or even thrown out.

If you are concerned about the use of 'outrage' (sensationalization?), go look at Breitbart and infowars for great examples of such.


Again - are you seeing other replies than mine? If so, please quote them so we know who the hell you're talking-to.

[JakeStarkey]

Again - are you seeing other replies than mine? If so, please quote them so we know who the hell you're talking-to.

Consider I am posting to you. Answer if you wish.

[darin]

Consider I am posting to you. Answer if you wish.


But you didn't make any points that even remotely speak to anything I've written.

[JakeStarkey]

But you didn't make any points that even remotely speak to anything I've written.
My points are clear, to the point, and you can't understand them.

[darin]

My points are clear, to the point, and you can't understand them.

Okay sonny -

here's what I wrote:


It's dishonest to say they are 'poised' to do something. From the link:


"The Supreme Court is set to expand gun rights and restrict abortion rights in a new term that begins Monday"


That is line of text intended to generate outrage. It's simply not true.


What is true is: "The court will rule on Gun rights and States' rights to decide limits abortion".


But the author wants outrage because outrage means clicks which mean advertising dollars.


As an aside - If the court can allow the govt to regulate vaccinations and smoking and all that - they should allow the govt to regulate abortions.



Here's what you wrote:


Only your outrage perhaps.

Gun rights are safe with both liberal and conservative members' votes.

The younger female voter (45 and under) will determine the future of the GOP is Roe v. Wade is seriously restricted or even thrown out.

If you are concerned about the use of 'outrage' (sensationalization?), go look at Breitbart and infowars for great examples of such.



So - As you can see you didn't reply to anything I wrote.

Nobody was outraged - yet you claimed (perhaps?) I was or am. That's a stupid conclusion on your part; 'outrage' has nothing to do with anyone's comments here.

re: Youger female voters. Okay? No shit. And illegal votes will continue to further the future of the DNC.

What does that last line mean? Do you mean if I am concerned about you blatantly mis-using 'outrage'? Why do I care about Breitbart or infowars in relation to your infantile commentary on world affairs?

[JakeStarkey]

And I did not say I did. I offered you, Darin, a chance to read it.

You can quarrel like a buffoon all you want, but I won't dialogue with silliness.

This SCOTUS term could offend gun nuts (but I don't think that will happen) and/or drive many younger female voters to rage, which is a possibility.

[darin]

And I did not say I did. I offered you, Darin, a chance to read it.

yes you did, Jack.


Consider I am posting to you. Answer if you wish.





You can quarrel like a buffoon all you want, but I won't dialogue with silliness.

This SCOTUS term could offend gun nuts (but I don't think that will happen) and/or drive many younger female voters to rage, which is a possibility.

Okay - we learned you don't talk to yourself. I get it. I do wish you'd use thought, wit, reason, and sound principles of communication though - at least here on the board.

It's kind of sexist to assume female voters would be more outraged at a decision affecting their freedom to kill other people. Lots of men want women to kill babies, too.

[JakeStarkey]

yes you did, Jack.






Okay - we learned you don't talk to yourself. I get it. I do wish you'd use thought, wit, reason, and sound principles of communication though - at least here on the board.

It's kind of sexist to assume female voters would be more outraged at a decision affecting their freedom to kill other people. Lots of men want women to kill babies, too.

You can project your anxieties all you want on to others.

That you completely misread others is your issue, as your pro-birth chatter implies.

[darin]

You can project your anxieties all you want on to others.

That you completely misread others is your issue, as your pro-birth chatter implies.


What broke your brain? Too many compound words distract you? You are terrible at communicating clear, rational thought.

[JakeStarkey]

What broke your brain? Too many compound words distract you? You are terrible at communicating clear, rational thought.

You are projecting again.

You have trouble in understanding others communications.

Truly, darin. Go to the doctor and be tested for graphic processing.

[darin]

You are projecting again.

You have trouble in understanding others communications.

Truly, darin. Go to the doctor and be tested for graphic processing.


Me going to the doctor cannot help you recover from your mental retardation. Your lack of rudimentary communication skills and your deplorable ability to communicate in English should worry you and those around you, if they care for you. I'm sure some folks love you - for their sake, seek help. Or don't. If you want to continue to be worthless on a debate forum; if you want to continue to lower the collective IQ within a group - keep doing what you're doing.

[JakeStarkey]

Me going to the doctor cannot help you recover from your mental retardation. Your lack of rudimentary communication skills and your deplorable ability to communicate in English should worry you and those around you, if they care for you. I'm sure some folks love you - for their sake, seek help. Or don't. If you want to continue to be worthless on a debate forum; if you want to continue to lower the collective IQ within a group - keep doing what you're doing.

You found a dictionary, so now you are babbling. I will continue have fun with your narcissism here. It's good for you.