If they can't be properly cared for, literally yes.

anyone who wants to pass laws to force people to get pregnant or give birth in order to increase the population generally tends to have the same beliefs as the nazis and skinheads, yes

i already demonstrated that, no need to repeat it back to me

you make the mistake of assuming people coming out the other end of it didn't "think about it"

how arrogant

yes, among fascists; it's a solved issue among economists

when people like you bring it up it's normally the first facet of the great replacement theory; we'll likely get to the second facet if we continue this discussion

oh no, i might be able to afford housing again

shit, that one ain't even a problem

a problem caused by the cap on social security based on income, not population shifts

two swings and two misses, what a surprise

most countries accept that a decreasing birthrate is literally inevitable for any sufficiently advanced civilization

it's not a problem worth worrying about because any potential issue is solved by opening up to immigration to fill in any gaps

the civilization that needs the people receives them, and the people enjoy the economic opportunity that comes with immigrating to a country with lots of resources - a win-win for everyone

congratulations, i solved the "decreasing birthrate" issue

the debate is already over: immigration offsets any issue that may arise from a decline in birth rate, so birth rate isn't an issue

you idiots just don't like that solution, do you?

hot take: i support the overturn. not from a pro life or pro abortion standpoint, i support it primarily because supreme court should be making legislation. roe v wade was unconstitutional.

call me a nazi

No, just a hypocyte, who enjoys ranting about how unfair things are towards people like you while enjoying how unfair things are to others.

And abortion is not in the Constitutions, just civil and privacy rights, which the theocracy of the Supreme court trashed. If only you had a brain.

"Precedents should be respected, but sometimes the Court errs, and occasionally the Court issues an important decision that is egregiously wrong. When that happens, stare decisis is not a straitjacket."

This is of course my favorite part of the whole opinion. Clearly Alito has not adapted well to the world in which we now live in. The day Dobbs gets overturned, essentially restoring Roe v. Wade, one of the justices better rip this quote a new one.

There are several facts about this event that do not square with the narrative you have spun here:

1. The Arizona Senate gallery was open to the public. A spokesperson for the Arizona GOP has acknowledged this.
2. Many people that were inside were voicing their opinions on an issue that was completely unrelated to abortion. Lawmakers were voting on a voucher program for schools.
3. Police were firing tear gas from inside the building at protestors outside. Lawmakers were moved to a different room because tear gas fired from police had made its way into the Senate chamber.

Your presentation of this story is completely dishonest.

Fun fact: The last time abortion was outlawed, the end result was entire hospital wards specialising in post-abortion sepsis.

Another one you half-arsed when you left the empire. The British Law Lords were very much bound by their own prior decisions.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks in the '90s that he wanted to serve for 43 years to make liberals' lives 'miserable'

I suspect that this is probably one of the main reasons why some posters are blindly supporting this ruling.

Imagine actually being the person who takes up such a position like Supreme Court Justice just to "TRIGGER TEH LIBZ!!!!!!!". What a fucking pathetic and miserable excuse of a human being Clarence is.

edy you have mistaken me with someone else

I genuinely can’t fathom why increasing the population is being proffered as a pro-life argument in this thread.

The concept sounds incredibly Maoist to me.

Well, that, and considering that his wife rakes in money from conservative movements (like the tea party movement), so he financially benefits from it as well. His Wife also helps to salt the courts with Conservative activists, who are sympathetic to Republican causes. And more recently, she was trying to help overturn the 2020 election, and her Husband knew this which is why he was the only dissenting opinion on the release of White House documents to the Jan 6th panel... Yes, he is a terrible justice in more than one way.

Nope. This is who you are, just like when you make arbitrary arguments claiming other calling you racist (with no specific example) to gain sympathy for yourself after calling others, like me, racist. It's just what you do.

sure edy sure whatever you say dude

keep going

i want an actual productive conversation but you wont let it go - this is why you're blocked. every now and then i peek your posts to hope for something engaging but its just unnecessary aggro.

boring.

Productive conversation? All you have done is play victim, while blindly supporting theocracy, not the Constitution. Hell, you ignored the 2nd half of my post too continue playing victim.

So much for your productive conversation...

At 6/25/22 08:16 PM, Sequenced wrote:

The man vying with Rogan for the mantle of ‘pied piper of morons’

you missed the point.

its a meme of what edy is doing. i don't particularly care for peterson.

This is actually a major problem in Japan right now. Massive population of elderly people, small population of younger/working folks means not enough money to keep their version of Social Security solvent.

Immigration could be an answer, but not only do they have space/land use problems to worry about (hence low quotas to begin with), they continue to keep insane COVID restrictions on entering the country. So even the people who already have permission to be there (e.g. exchange students) can't get in. For example, there was one doctorate student who finally had to give up a position she had accepted because two years later, she still couldn't get into the country and wasn't getting paid, but the bills were piling up, so something had to give.

Obviously the situation isn't so bad over here, but it's getting there.

As for ghost cities: no people = no infrastructure, so even if housing IS affordable there, good luck getting a job that doesn't have an hour-long commute or having the utility company keep your water on since the pipes are all rusted out.

I'll say it again: Democrats knew from day one that Republicans wanted to overturn the decision. They had 50 years to codify it into law. That 50 years included three instance where Democrats controlled all three chambers, including the 2009 supermajority in the Senate. Why didn't they do it at any of these times if it was so important to them?

You may remember that Obama said he'd codify Roe if he was elected in 2008. Then he got into office and said it was "not a priority." So, I can only conclude two things: they wanted to use perceived and/or real threats to Roe as a carrot for fundraising, and as a bogeyman to get people to vote for them because bad things would happen if you didn't. Then they'd do nothing anyway. (For that matter, so did the Republicans, who always fundraised/ran on "vote for us to outlaw abortion" and then never bothered. It was a convenient wedge issue for everyone.)

Of course, Democrats themselves aren't the only ones to blame. RBG's sheer narcissism and hubris kept her from retiring despite Obama's gentle suggestion (he should have been more aggressive) that a cancer survivor in her late 70s might not make it past a pivotal election, and he had a supermajority at that point and would have been able to replace her. Hell, even Justice Kennedy knew when to call it quits. I can picture it: RBG wanted to swear in Hillary as President because glass ceilings and all that shit.

Where we can once again place the blame on Democrats is clearing the field in 2016 to run the worst candidate in the history of Planet Earth who brought nothing to the table other than condescending smugness and an overwhelming sense of entitlement because it was "her turn." There were plenty of other good Democratic candidates who would have done well. One Joe Biden comes to mind. Unlike Hillary, he would have left the Hamptons fundraisers to go hobnob with the proles she couldn't stand to be in the same five-mile radius as.

I suppose, in a way, Democrats also had a long plan for the Court like Republicans did. But a "plan" that relies on the whims and lifespans of unelected judges with life tenures is not a plan.

So, blame Democrats for not preventing it when they couldn't do anything about it, but excuse Republicans for actually doing it.

Your argument still doesn't make any sense, no matter how you try to spin it, Rydia. It's like you have some deep seated hatred of Democrats that blinds you to the point you are being unreasonable. And besides, The conservative controlled supreme court would have smacked down anything Democrats passed in congress over it.

Already posted this. And if he is butt hurt about how he was treated at his confirmation hearing, like what most Justices go through, then he shouldn't be a justice, since he's not being objective, or adherent to the constitution that he swore to uphold. He's just vindictive and partisan.

Love that article still, worth a read

Ah yes, that's the sort of impartiality you want in a judge of the highest court of the nation.

MAGA Lawmaker Thanks Trump For 'Historic' Supreme Court Ruling For 'White Life'

Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) said the quiet part out loud Saturday when she thanked former President Donald Trump at an Illinois rally for his role in overturning Roe v. Wade by picking conservative justices.

“President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court,” she said, to cheers and applause.

I’ll be charitable and give the benefit of the doubt that she intended “right to life” instead of “white life”, both of which sit painfully in that speech she was delivering.

Yeah, but as the article points out, she was also known for quoting Hitler...

“You know, if we win a few elections, we’re still going to be losing unless we win the hearts and minds of our children. This is the battle,” Miller said at the time. “Hitler was right on one thing: He said whoever has the youth has the future.”

And also:

After a gunman killed 19 young children and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas, in May, Miller attacked those fighting for gun safety as “trying to destroy our society’s central pillars of faith, family and freedom,” the Tribune reported. “We need to go back to God,” she added.

Sane, thoughtful, people, would not give credence to anything that Hitler said, ever, unless they, to some degree, secretly admired what he did to protect his race. And they certainly wouldn't focouse on "defending their culture and faith" after one of the worse school shootings in US history. That just pure hypocrisy to their "right to life" position.

Abortion is very much part of the current culture war, where those in the cultural establishment are very concerned about losing their dominate positions in it. And we already know, by what Justice Clearance Thomas said, and what some Republican leaders have indicated, that they want to go after same sex marriages, birth control, and contraception after overturning Roe vs Wade... It's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt when they vilify minorities, while constantly focusing on defending their white Christian culture by playing victim - and moaning about how unfair things are for them, while ignoring how much worse off other groups are from them.

And if they really cared about "right to life" then they would have expanded healthcare services, and welfare, to single mothers, and offered free school lunches, instead of doing the opposite by cutting them.

You mean the part where he fucked everything up and had to kill himself in his bunker to avoid being lynched?

Then again, extreme stupidity is a requirement for Neo-Nazi-dom.

Idk if this was already brought up, but Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, two of the conservative justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, claimed that they believed the case was settled law prior to its overturning, so they could technically be impeached for lying under oath, though considering how the Senate's been recently, that's unfortunately not likely to happen.

(article from The Independent)