Some registered account users are experiencing password recognition issues. The issue appears to have been triggered by a PHP update last night. If this is occurring, please try logging in and using the "forgot password?" utility. Bear in mind auto-generated password reset emails may appear in your spam folder. If this does not work, please click the "Contact Us" option near the lower right hand corner of the index page to contact me via email.
Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.
Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
-
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:46 pm
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
How long until a certain anti-abortion, anti-cop poster resurfaces to rejoice in today’s news?
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
Don't you mean "menstruating person?"
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
The President called on Congress to pass legislation protecting a woman's right to choose as I knew he would. I think Manchin and Sinema may surprise people with their vote. This isn't over quite yet.
- MotorCityRadioFreak
- Posts: 7333
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
- Location: Warren, MI
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
Fuck you, asshole. I am done talking to all fuckwads today.
They/them, non-binary and proud.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
The ruling doesn't impact you at all.MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 6:34 pmFuck you, asshole. I am done talking to all fuckwads today.
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
Are we certain about that?
I don't know about you, but while I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way about this ruling (I don't believe that abortion is a Constitutional right, but I don't believe the issue should be left to the states either), I AM thoroughly enjoying watching the left in full-blown meltdown mode today. I mean, I know they're always in some kind of meltdown mode, but today seems special.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
You're going to be pretty lonely not being able to talk to yourself at all.MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 6:34 pmFuck you, asshole. I am done talking to all fuckwads today.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
Yeah you know it's funny, the same people melting down today for a limiting a woman's right to choose, didn't have the same opinion on whether people had a right to choose to conceal carry in New York
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
It has certainly been interesting. I think abortion should be legal to an extent and regulated. Today's ruling pushes it to the states, but leftist emo people seem to think it was made illegal today.bmw wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 6:42 pmAre we certain about that?
I don't know about you, but while I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way about this ruling (I don't believe that abortion is a Constitutional right, but I don't believe the issue should be left to the states either), I AM thoroughly enjoying watching the left in full-blown meltdown mode today. I mean, I know they're always in some kind of meltdown mode, but today seems special.
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
Excellent point! On top of that, these people are the same ones that were cheering lockdowns and forced cosplay for two years.
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
I think we as a nation need to figure out a standard for determining when life starts, and that said standard should apply to all 50 states. I don't like the idea of 50 different definitions of what constitutes a life.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!!
The censorship king from out of state.
- audiophile
- Posts: 9236
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
Yep. To quote democrat operative James Carville: "it's the economy, stupid!"Matt wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:48 pmBig Republican wins.MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:41 pmWhen you say red tsunami, I don't think you realize what you are asking for.Matt wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:34 pmLooking forward to the red tsunami?MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:20 pmI'm saving this for November.Matt wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:10 pmAbortion wasn't even banned. Quit being an overly emotional victim.MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:00 pmIt already happened today, you dumb fuck. Non pro creative sex is banned.Bryce wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:28 pmDon't get your panties in a wad. No other justice joined with Justice Thomas in that opinion. Ain't gonna happen.MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:00 pm Clarence Thomas also said as part of this ruling that non pro creative sex should be re evaluated. I hope you all enjoyed your BJ's because individual states now have the right to ban them. Fuck SCOTUS. Expand the court!
Even if it did, and the state you lived in did ban sodomy, you're free to move to a state that allows nob gobbling to your hearts content.
Big red wave because the Biden Whitehouse is an abortion.
Seriously, only few will be thinking about abortion as top issue by then.
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
I'm well aware that has no chance in hell of ever happening. Just as a purely philosophical matter, I believe this is how it should be done.
But yeah, this is along the lines of, could you imagine our current politicians trying to agree on, say, a brand new Constitution from scratch?
- MotorCityRadioFreak
- Posts: 7333
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
- Location: Warren, MI
Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
Life begins at ejaculation, so stop jerking off.
They/them, non-binary and proud.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.