Jump to content

What pissed you off today? v.2


Mara
 Share

Recommended Posts

Now I remember why I never requested access to SOCN :laugh:

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, HomesickAlien said:

 

This will be on a much lighter note than previous posts.

 

There's a house about 100 yards away which sits on a few acres. Since the arrival of hot weather the owner has taken to mowing his lawn around dusk/dark. This wouldn't be a problem unless, like me, you go to bed at 9 pm and like to sleep with the window open a bit. When I go to bed the only sounds I want to hear are nocturnal insects and the breeze rustling through the trees, not some guy tearing around his back yard on a riding mower.

 

I think I'm beginning to turn into my father.

 

There he goes with that damned mower again...

Thing is that in summer months it's safer to do yard work after temperatures have peaked. Meaning, in the hour or 2 before the sun goes down.

I get it, only because I have the opposite problem, I like to sleep in on weekends. But there's always someone out there at 8am running a mower or trimmer.   Ugh.

 

Edited by grep
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 8:46 PM, laughedatbytime said:

NY and CA are a lot closer to being governed like China and North Korea so I think that's probably appropriate.

As a former New Yorker, I respectfully disagree.

I have no love for all of NY's politics and liberalism. But it's a fine state.  I only left because I had better carrer prospects elsewhere.

North Korea it is not. By f***ing far. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Rick N. Backer said:

Watching the news last night, it seems to me many people are being misled about what the U.S. Supreme Court actually decided yesterday.  They ruled that the regulation of abortion is not a subject addressed in the federal constitution.  That doesn’t mean it’s not a significant issue.  It means that Alabama and Massachusetts don’t have to have the same regulations.  A state can provide for abortion up to birth if it’s citizens so choose.  But the federal constitution is silent about it.

 

if you are passionate about this issue, turn your attention to your state legislative races and your governor’s elections.

 

Finally, a word about stare decisis.  When the Supreme Court decided that “separate but equal” facilities were legal they were wrong.  If a case challenging “separate but equal” facilities had come up on appeal in 1897 (the year after Plessy), the court would have been right to overturn it.   It is to America’s shame that it took more than 50 years to do that.

The state I live in is a lost cause, they have succeeded in creating a supermajority which pretty much ends much that can be changed locally, I know, I have been involved with groups here trying to enact change for years and always voted in every election I could. We managed to get an initiative passed to form a Redistricting Commission. They did their work and offered up several maps.  Our Legislature threw them in the trash and drew new ones that ensured this will continue to be effectively a one party state. 

 

In regards to Roe, the Legislature enacted a trigger law last year so they would be ready for this decision.  So as of 11 pm MDT abortion is illegal in my home state except in a few instances.  I have often been glad the Federal government was there to equalize some of the narrow minded actions our State leaders forced on us.  Now that is a moot point.  There are other reasons for my anger about this issue but I will not elaborate since it is personal.  We live in this state because we love the beautiful scenery and have family here, so moving is not an option at this time.

 

I know what stare decisis is and know that it has been overturned before.  Plessy was one that ought to have been overturned.  I do not think that is the case with Roe and that is my opinion and I vented my frustration here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, JohnRogers said:

RBG famously remarked on Roe’s flimsy foundation. 

 

The reality is this court’s decision made getting an abortion inconvenient for some women. So when the pro-abortion side ask “what about” my answer is what about the unborn child. 

I find the phrase "make it inconvenient" very telling.  This decision will affect those who can least afford tickets to other states, the middle class and rich will still have access because they have money.  Those who can't afford to raise more children will be punished because they are poor and those who want them to have those babies will not be there to help support them or provide medical care for them.

 

Yes, what about the unborn child?  Is it better to force a woman to have a child and resent it, how will that provide a loving home?  What about the woman who already has 2 children and if she dies in childbirth for a 3rd she can't support, was it fair to make those two children orphans?   There are also contraception failures, partners who don't want a bigger family or cannot afford one.  Is it better to put that family in financial hardship?  It isn't a simple choice but I think those women and their partners should be allowed to make that not some moralistic politicans.

 

RBG thought Roe was focused on the wrong argument, how it was that restricting access to abortion violated a woman’s privacy. What she hoped for instead was a protection of the right to abortion on the basis that restricting it impeded gender equality. She felt it would have been better to address it under the equal protection clause.  (NYT 10/21/2020).  But she supported abortion access for  women.

Edited by Rhyta
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, grep said:

As a former New Yorker, I respectfully disagree.

I have no love for all of NY's politics and liberalism. But it's a fine state.  I only left because I had better carrer prospects elsewhere.

North Korea it is not. By f***ing far. 

Sheesh, it was an exaggeration.

 

Slightly.  I think.   You do have a fine record of your AGs being pervs, though.   As moralistic as anyone on the religious right, and as perverted as JFJ, too.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rhyta said:

 

 

Yes, what about the unborn child?  Is it better to force a woman to have a child and resent it, how will that provide a loving home?  What about the woman who already has 2 children and if she dies in childbirth for a 3rd she can't support, was it fair to make those two children orphans?   There are also contraception failures, partners who don't want a bigger family or cannot afford one.  Is it better to put that family in financial hardship?  It isn't a simple choice but I think those women and their partners should be allowed to make that not some moralistic politicans.

 

Better dead than adopted.   What moral giants there are on the pro abortion side.  :rolleyes:

 

These are also arguments that could apply to families who have very young infants?  What if the price of baby formula goes through the roof five days after a child is born?   What if the mother is in a fatal accident when the child is six months old and she's picking him/her home from daycare.   What happens if the family breadwinner loses their job a month after the baby comes?   What if the mother realizes the taking care of a baby is harder than she thought?   There's absolutely nothing in these arguments that would prevent infanticide.  (I assume you don't support that, though I'd be interested to know why you don't.  It can't be the argument you made above.)

 

Everything in the argument over abortion, at its core, comes down to the competing right of the unborn child to life vs the right of the mother not to have to give birth.   Everything else is superfluous and logically inconsistent (presuming you don't support infanticide).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Rhyta said:

 

RBG thought Roe was focused on the wrong argument, how it was that restricting access to abortion violated a woman’s privacy. What she hoped for instead was a protection of the right to abortion on the basis that restricting it impeded gender equality. She felt it would have been better to address it under the equal protection clause.  (NYT 10/21/2020).

It's irrelevant, she knows it was wrongly decided.   Too bad for your side that the 7 mystics who made up the right out of whole cloth made it so easy for those ruling on its Constitutionality to overturn it just by properly interpreting the Constitution, though it IS surprising that Roberts didn't make the argument for RBG's case for them; it's not like he hasn't done that in the past.

 

If she was on the Court, however, presented with the arguments in zRoe, I suspect she would have voted in favor of Roe, after all, "there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rhyta said:

I find the phrase "make it inconvenient" very telling.  This decision will affect those who can least afford tickets to other states, the middle class and rich will still have access because they have money.  Those who can't afford to raise more children will be punished because they are poor and those who want them to have those babies will not be there to help support them or provide medical care for them.

 

Yes, what about the unborn child?  Is it better to force a woman to have a child and resent it, how will that provide a loving home?  What about the woman who already has 2 children and if she dies in childbirth for a 3rd she can't support, was it fair to make those two children orphans?   There are also contraception failures, partners who don't want a bigger family or cannot afford one.  Is it better to put that family in financial hardship?  It isn't a simple choice but I think those women and their partners should be allowed to make that not some moralistic politicans.

 

RBG thought Roe was focused on the wrong argument, how it was that restricting access to abortion violated a woman’s privacy. What she hoped for instead was a protection of the right to abortion on the basis that restricting it impeded gender equality. She felt it would have been better to address it under the equal protection clause.  (NYT 10/21/2020).  But she supported abortion access for  women.

There are options short of abortion for every scenario you posted above. Apparently NY & CA will bus the mother in if she can’t afford the ticket. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, laughedatbytime said:

It's irrelevant, she knows it was wrongly decided.   Too bad for your side that the 7 mystics who made up the right out of whole cloth made it so easy for those ruling on its Constitutionality to overturn it just by properly interpreting the Constitution, though it IS surprising that Roberts didn't make the argument for RBG's case for them; it's not like he hasn't done that in the past.

 

If she was on the Court, however, presented with the arguments in zRoe, I suspect she would have voted in favor of Roe, after all, "there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

LOL...gender equality. Stupid RBG, men can get pregnant now. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rhyta said:

The state I live in is a lost cause, they have succeeded in creating a supermajority which pretty much ends much that can be changed locally, I know, I have been involved with groups here trying to enact change for years and always voted in every election I could. We managed to get an initiative passed to form a Redistricting Commission. They did their work and offered up several maps.  Our Legislature threw them in the trash and drew new ones that ensured this will continue to be effectively a one party state. 

 

In regards to Roe, the Legislature enacted a trigger law last year so they would be ready for this decision.  So as of 11 pm MDT abortion is illegal in my home state except in a few instances.  I have often been glad the Federal government was there to equalize some of the narrow minded actions our State leaders forced on us.  Now that is a moot point.  There are other reasons for my anger about this issue but I will not elaborate since it is personal.  We live in this state because we love the beautiful scenery and have family here, so moving is not an option at this time.

 

I know what stare decisis is and know that it has been overturned before.  Plessy was one that ought to have been overturned.  I do not think that is the case with Roe and that is my opinion and I vented my frustration here.

I live in a one party state myself.  It’s very frustrating to watch people claim they want moderation and bipartisanship, only to have politicians like Scott Brown lose to polarizing extremists.  Still, we’ve been able to periodically elect governors who represent the center of the state’s body politic (which is not the center in general, but is preferable to what we could, and are about to, get.).

 

My point about stare decisis was that many people seem to be claiming that overturning Roe and Casey was bad because overturning a decision is itself evidence of impropriety or extremism.  But they don’t believe that, so I wish we’d stick to arguments people truly support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Your_Lion said:

Now I remember why I never requested access to SOCN :laugh:

 

You'd be surprised, I think.  I have learned quite a bit from many regulars.  LABT, for example, understands mathematics and statistics in a way I never could.  

 

Sure, we have a few folks who don't contribute much of substance, but they're outnumbered by the people who do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rick N. Backer said:

You'd be surprised, I think.  I have learned quite a bit from many regulars.  LABT, for example, understands mathematics and statistics in a way I never could.  

 

Sure, we have a few folks who don't contribute much of substance, but they're outnumbered by the people who do.

 

Come on, man. 

:sad:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2022 at 9:41 AM, Rick N. Backer said:

I live in a one party state myself.  It’s very frustrating to watch people claim they want moderation and bipartisanship, only to have politicians like Scott Brown lose to polarizing extremists.  Still, we’ve been able to periodically elect governors who represent the center of the state’s body politic (which is not the center in general, but is preferable to what we could, and are about to, get.).

 

My point about stare decisis was that many people seem to be claiming that overturning Roe and Casey was bad because overturning a decision is itself evidence of impropriety or extremism.  But they don’t believe that, so I wish we’d stick to arguments people truly support.

My understanding of why so many are bringing up stare decisis is because the judges who voted to end Roe stated that they believed it was settled law and established precedent in their confirmation hearings..  Some feel this was a bait and switch to get on the Court and then throw Roe out the window. Some think it was willful deception.  It is ironic to me that by saying Roe was wrongly decided, the Court is throwing out decisions by conservative judges.  Just seems overly punitive and tone deaf IMHO.

Edited by Rhyta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess this should be on the What made you sad topic.  Just noticed in the new format it shows top posters on this thread and two of them are Orfie and Lorraine...:sigh:

Edited by Rhyta
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rhyta said:

My understanding of why so many are bringing up stare decisis is because the judges who voted to end Roe stated that they believed it was settled law and established precedent in their confirmation hearings.  Some feel this was a bait and switch to get on the Court and then throw Roe out the window. Some think it was willful deception.  It is ironic to me that by saying Roe was wrongly decided, the Court is throwing out decisions by conservative judges.  Just seems overly punitive and tone deaf IMHO.

That's sort of my point though.  People are citing stare decisis, when they really mean they think judicial nominees who acknowledged that decisions by the Court are properly recognized as "precedents," were pledging not to overturn them.  That, they reason, means the nominees lied.   But a judicial nominee who indicates he or she knows how he or she would decide any case, before he or she hears it, isn't fit for the job.  The job is to listen to the specific case, listen to the arguments for and against each position, and rule after giving both sides a full and fair hearing.  Moreover, that mindset reveals that people don't understand what an appellate court (as the Supreme Court is) does.  Questions about the correct application of the law are reviewed de novo, which means with no deference to what another judge may have decided about the law.  A Court of Appeals or a Trial Court is bound by what the Supreme Court has said about the law.  The Supreme Court is not bound by what it has said.

 

The Roe majority was not comprised of conservatives.  William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, and William Douglas were die hard liberals.  Harry Blackmun was a liberal in 1973, and revealed himself to be a die hard liberal by the time he retired.  Lewis Powell and Potter Stewart were, at best, moderates.  Warren Burger was very similar to John Roberts, in that he had a tendency to vote based upon what he thought looked good.  The liberals on his court hated him for that, as detailed in Bob Woodward's excellent book, The Bretheren.  

 

What I find fascinating is how people are calling it activist to decide, in essence, that the voters have to resolve an issue for themselves.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 9:12 PM, Your_Lion said:

Now I remember why I never requested access to SOCN :laugh:

 

Right? I used to have access to SOCN and this thread is reminding me why I asked for it to be removed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm complaining in advance with this one, and it regards fireworks.

 

Local ordinances prohibit anything beyond firecrackers, but that doesn't stop the local kids, and adults who should know better, from detonating what I swear are sticks of dynamite.

 

Beginning tomorrow night, and continuing periodically throughout the weekend, it will sound as though I'm living in a village in the Donbas being shelled by the Russians.

 

I'll be annoyed. The cat will be terrified.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2022 at 8:50 PM, HomesickAlien said:

 

I'm complaining in advance with this one, and it regards fireworks.

 

Local ordinances prohibit anything beyond firecrackers, but that doesn't stop the local kids, and adults who should know better, from detonating what I swear are sticks of dynamite.

 

Beginning tomorrow night, and continuing periodically throughout the weekend, it will sound as though I'm living in a village in the Donbas being shelled by the Russians.

 

I'll be annoyed. The cat will be terrified.  

As I type this, some goddamn morons in the neighborhood are shooting off leftover fireworks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2022 at 7:50 PM, HomesickAlien said:

 

I'm complaining in advance with this one, and it regards fireworks.

 

Local ordinances prohibit anything beyond firecrackers, but that doesn't stop the local kids, and adults who should know better, from detonating what I swear are sticks of dynamite.

 

Beginning tomorrow night, and continuing periodically throughout the weekend, it will sound as though I'm living in a village in the Donbas being shelled by the Russians.

 

I'll be annoyed. The cat will be terrified.  

 

On 7/6/2022 at 7:45 PM, pjbear05 said:

As I type this, some goddamn morons in the neighborhood are shooting off leftover fireworks.

 

I'm still hearing the occasional barrage of really loud fireworks in the evening. I'm on the edge of town, so fields and farms are less than half a mile away. It could be they're outside the city limits and exempt from local ordinances, but I suspect it's more likely nobody complains and nobody cares.

 

I hope they run out of ammo soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so this morning i realized that my balls really hurt, and it's because i never get any action. f***ing never man, it really sucks

 

so i decide to message this lady i have some interest in, and we talk for a while and eventually i drop her the question, smooth as silk, "can i touch your boobs?"

 

she agreed, and i was very happy, because i get to touch her boobs and relieve my balls right? wrong. she flaked on me. so now i'm still here and my balls hurt even more now, and i'm just thinking about her boobs. i'm trying to reschedule with her, but i think at this point it might just be best to move forward with me life instead.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mr. Not said:

so this morning i realized that my balls really hurt, and it's because i never get any action. f***ing never man, it really sucks

 

so i decide to message this lady i have some interest in, and we talk for a while and eventually i drop her the question, smooth as silk, "can i touch your boobs?"

 

she agreed, and i was very happy, because i get to touch her boobs and relieve my balls right? wrong. she flaked on me. so now i'm still here and my balls hurt even more now, and i'm just thinking about her boobs. i'm trying to reschedule with her, but i think at this point it might just be best to move forward with me life instead.

To the tune of "Silver Bells":

"Blue balls, blue balls, It's dollar night at the titty bar."

 Git-R-Done, Larry the Cable Guy

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They were already out of cinnamon rolls at Panera when I got there this morning. I also had to wait for them to make more light roast coffee.

 

The horror.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Stormtron said:

Someone broke into a bunch of cars on our street. f***ers stole $80 from ours. I wanna perch up on the roof like Batman tonight if they come back.


 

:firedevil:       I am vengeance!!        

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...