DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus And The Violence Begins...

If you call OCD "the left" it looks like that would be correct. However, if you're using the term "the left" as an all inclusive stereotype you would be wrong.

The right IS violent... The left MAY become violent, over the actions of the right. There is a huge difference when you lose the agenda, Vers. Kumbaya.

That doesn't make it right or any better.

I'm definitely not the left. And I don't wish for any violence against the justices FROM ANYONE. But I won't say violence would not BE justified. If for some reason the court reverses and keeps Roe, the right will absolutely lose it's mind... You don't think there would be violence then? Hell the anti-abortionists have been violent for 50 years and nobody ever talks about that crap. Christofascism.

I don't give a damn, I'm just calling it like I see it. Not trying to say this is right and that is wrong. Guys like 40 want to make a big deal out of left wing protests, calling it violent mobs... While overlooking the right's aggression, violence, and culpability. But you can't intentionally attack somebody then cry unfair when they hit back. Screw that, and I won't tolerate that sentiment being casually spread until it's normalized, like most of the outrageous crap the right tries to pull. Science is real, facts are facts... but not for the right. I could go on, but you should get the point.

Buzz off.

Just trying to make it obviously clear that not every left leaning poster agrees with a lot of the things you post. Especially things like this. You have the right to say and post anything you like. That's not an issue for me. But some of the over the top posts you make are things I would never go along with or agree with. I mean now I guess you can call me names like you've done in the past because I'm "liberal enough" for you. That's usually what comes next when I post something like this.

How would you define violence - riots? mass shootings? robberies? stealing? beating people up? Abuse? murder? rape?


Do you have any proof that the left is not violent?

U.S. Marshals providing ‘around-the-clock security’ at Supreme Court justices’ homes, DOJ says

The U.S. Marshals Service is providing “around-the-clock security” at the homes of all nine Supreme Court justices, the Department of Justice said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/18/doj...ity-at-supreme-court-justices-homes.html

I would say both sides have been guilty of violence which is always wrong, BUT that wouldn't be right. You see it's individual nut cases who have committed the violence. I don't believe 90 percent (just my guess) of people on either side would commit or support violence.

I hope they can keep them safe... for a long, long, time. If ROE goes down, the rest of their lives will require protection from the Big Meanie protesters that did exactly nothing violent toward them. But they are GOPers so being scared should come natural.

Supreme Court could rule on Roe v. Wade on Monday, as Biden admin braces for violence after decision
The Biden admin is preparing for nationwide violence after the Supreme Court issues a decision on Roe v. Wade

Additionally, a memo dated May 13 from DHS reveals that the Biden administration is investigating threats to the Supreme Court building and to justices in the weeks since the leak. The memo first reported by Axios details ongoing investigations into threats to "burn down or storm" the Supreme Court building.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-roe-wade-ruling-biden-admin-braces-violence-decision

Release the Lib Brown Shirts!

This may sound like a spy thriller novel or conspiracy theory, but I wouldn't be surprised if the leak wasn't staged and intentional by the CIA as a distraction to the current economic situation with inflation and gas prices.

I don't think Operation Mockingbird ever stopped.

Personally I think every woman should have a right to choose, and nobody, especially not the freaking government should tell them otherwise.

That's a cause I'd be willing to fight for.

As has been said the decision was going to come out before their summer break. So the leak didn't come out that long before the decision would have anyway. The only difference is that the leak came out a little earlier. I think if you actually look at it, the American public has a very short attention span. If anything I think if it was something to distract people from the economy before the election, it would have been better to have waited until closer to the election, about the time the SCOTUS would ave been announcing it anyway. That would have made the decision much fresher in the minds of the voters.

We saw what happened on January 6th when you don't make plans for a worst case scenario.

It is unconstitutional for Roe to stand at the Federal level.

Abortion law belongs at the State level.

Just like there isn't a Federal Drivers License due to Federalism.

Abortion isn't going away.

LMAO.

What's funny?

The Constitution?
States Rights?
No Federal drivers license?
Federalism?

Or do you just have gas?

You and your trolling.

I guess he thinks people must need a license in order to have an abortion. I wonder if the he thinks they need a license in order to have civil rights? Or maybe he thinks that should be a state to state issue as well. I guess possibly he doesn't understand that protecting the rights of Americans has very often times been a federal issue.

I know you have comprehension problems and like to get fights started but the truth of Federalism covers a myriad of situations.

Federalism is a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Generally, an overarching national government is responsible for broader governance of larger territorial areas, while the smaller subdivisions, states, and cities govern the issues of local concern.

Abortion is one of those situations and will be covered by the States.

Roe is going away, not abortion.

what ever happened to separation of church and state?

You seem to believe people need a license to exercise a civil right.

You guys don't seem to understand it is not the church that is saying Roe is unconstitutional, it is the Judiciary.

Did you mean to address that to me or to pit?

He addressed it to me since he has trouble following along. He must have missed your post.


It seems to be a continuing theme with him.

You dissing Frank is funny.



It is you who did not comprehend my post.

I didn't make that news I just reported it.

No, I addressed it correctly.

The "rights' he cares about should be free from interference. Other rights, especially enumerated rights, should be burdened to make him feel safer.

It is the hypocrisy of "the rights I care about are more important than the rights you care about".

I agree, Rights are Rights whether or not you agree with them.

My point is there are things the Federal government has power over and other things that States have power over. Like drivers licenses.

The Supreme Court looks like they are deciding Abortion law is not within the purview of the Federal gov but the State gov.

We have seen how the Democrats operate.

They send in their violent Brown Shirts to mingle with the regular, lawful protesters and then they explode in violence.
Next they cry that the police cracked down on peaceful protesters.

Rinse and Repeat.

I do understand the idea of State's rights when it comes to abortion. The COTUS doesn't grant the right to govern abortion to the Federal government, which could imply it does not have the ability to do so. Unfortunately we live with a Federal government that has far outstripped its remit and bounds placed on it by the COTUS. There are so many things ways the Federal government has out paced the idea of limited government and State's rights and the rights of the people.

I do see how one could make a 9A and 10A argument for the right to abortion and keep it a federally protected right. Roe's argument was a 14A right to privacy which seems very end-means. Would one have a right to privacy if one is conspiring to commit a crime?

In the end I expect people to lose their minds over the decision but actual fail to read and understand what was decided, no matter how things are decided. I doubt most of the people protesting have even read Roe v Wade or could tell you what the mechanism used to get to the decision was, whether that mechanism was flawed or now. Today it is about people having temper tantrums cause they didn't get their way.

Uh, are you hitting on me by chance?

Funnier and funnier.

No but I could have a beer with you I believe.

Coincidence! Sitting here working on a 40 as I read this!

40 downing a 40

Here's to you Bud.

Obviously, we don't align politically, but you both make true and valid points here. But in the case of ROE, or any other current right being suddenly targeted for political destruction, there is another factor at play in how the country responds. I learned in business a long time ago, that giving employees something they want, for any amount of time without stipulating it is temporary from the onset, and then attempting to take it away, never ends well for the business. I think that same lesson applies to taking rights from people. You can argue it's a federal vs. states rights issue, but everyone can see what is at risk and what those doing this are trying to change or take away. Now we will get to see this play out in real life. I think many championing this move by SCOTUS will live to regret it for reasons too numerous to conceive. Time will tell.

Which I find hilarious. Everyone still has the right not to get an abortion. Nobody is trying to deprive anyone from not getting an abortion. Just like all of the people who fought against gay marriage. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. Nobody is trying to force anyone to get an abortion. Just like religion. Everyone has the right to practice their religion and believe as they choose. They do not have the right to force their religious beliefs on the rest of society through legislation. Yet they keep doing it.

And yet you would insist people get a license from the government to exercise their right to bear arms, cause "common sense" and "public safety".

I don't expect anyone that doesn't want to bear arms to do so. I wouldn't compel anyone to own arms if they didn't feel the need to, but some would require asking the government for permission even though it is a right.