Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

D0nt45k

Soggy Member
  • Posts

    390
  • Joined


Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    D0nt45k got a reaction from BartleyZumboza in The US Supreme Court   
    No idea.
    Here's my two cents on that particular ruling: all the SCOTUS ruling on that case did was kick the debate back to the state level where it belongs.  Now the states that want it can have it with even less restrictions than before, and the ones that don't can ban it or restrict it further.
    Note, also, that the original ruling in Roe v Wade was illegal, per the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg of all people (according to a piece she wrote while head of the ACLU).  SCOTUS made up a law that didn't actually exist, that's one problem.  The other problem was that the plaintiff in the case admitted after the fact that she made the whole thing up, and in literally any other court case, perjury would be grounds to throw the ruling out and declare it a mistrial.
    Now, for the record, I'm not even going to get into my own views on the matter, I'm just pointing out that there's a legal way to pass laws, and that requires one of two procedures to be followed.  If the pro-choice crowd wants an abortion law on the books at the federal level, they can have it, they just have to pass it legally through Congress or via a constitutional convention.  SCOTUS, on the other hand, finally did what it was supposed to do.  Their job isn't to pass laws, it's not to "read the room", it's not even to make judgements based on the "greater good", it's to ask one simple question: "is this constitutional or not?"  The actions of the prior court were illegal, so they struck the old ruling down, and rightfully so.

    And to those who might say "to hell with procedure"...be very careful what you wish for, because if you do that and establish a precedent, you'd better believe it'll be used against you later, the Constitution puts limits on the power of government to protect you, not to hinder you.  Never assume that the other side won't gain power one day.
  2. cheer
    D0nt45k got a reaction from leepee43 in The US Supreme Court   
    Those justices weren't under oath when they were asked about Roe v Wade.  They had no obligation to tell the truth.
    I know you and so many other people here don't want to hear it, but the US is a federal republic, and the Constitution has this thing called the 10th Amendment, where any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are the sole domain of the states and the people, until otherwise amended.  There is a process to amend the constitution, you're welcome to use it.  The laws aren't wrong, the people who don't understand them are wrong.
    You want to put forward an amendment to mandate abortion access across the country?  Fine, there's a process to do that.   You don't get to skip it just because you feel like it (and if you do it anyway, mark my words, your opposition will do the same thing to you - if you don't follow the rules, the other side won't either).
    Oh and before you bring up the court that passed it in the first place?  Thurgood Marshall, Chief Justice at that time, was openly and proudly an activist, he abused his unelected position on the bench to pass edicts and admitted as much.  The 14th Amendment does not say anything about bodily autonomy, that's a lie, Ruth Bader Ginsburg of all people pointed this out.  She agreed with the principle of the ruling, but pointed out, correctly, that the ruling was illegal, and that by breaking the law in the first place, the pro-choice crowd gave ammunition to their opposition that ensured the debate will never end.  Shouldn't have broken the law in the first place.
  3. cheer
    D0nt45k got a reaction from leepee43 in The US Supreme Court   
    No idea.
    Here's my two cents on that particular ruling: all the SCOTUS ruling on that case did was kick the debate back to the state level where it belongs.  Now the states that want it can have it with even less restrictions than before, and the ones that don't can ban it or restrict it further.
    Note, also, that the original ruling in Roe v Wade was illegal, per the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg of all people (according to a piece she wrote while head of the ACLU).  SCOTUS made up a law that didn't actually exist, that's one problem.  The other problem was that the plaintiff in the case admitted after the fact that she made the whole thing up, and in literally any other court case, perjury would be grounds to throw the ruling out and declare it a mistrial.
    Now, for the record, I'm not even going to get into my own views on the matter, I'm just pointing out that there's a legal way to pass laws, and that requires one of two procedures to be followed.  If the pro-choice crowd wants an abortion law on the books at the federal level, they can have it, they just have to pass it legally through Congress or via a constitutional convention.  SCOTUS, on the other hand, finally did what it was supposed to do.  Their job isn't to pass laws, it's not to "read the room", it's not even to make judgements based on the "greater good", it's to ask one simple question: "is this constitutional or not?"  The actions of the prior court were illegal, so they struck the old ruling down, and rightfully so.

    And to those who might say "to hell with procedure"...be very careful what you wish for, because if you do that and establish a precedent, you'd better believe it'll be used against you later, the Constitution puts limits on the power of government to protect you, not to hinder you.  Never assume that the other side won't gain power one day.
  4. Downvote
    D0nt45k got a reaction from TVGuy in The US Supreme Court   
    Those justices weren't under oath when they were asked about Roe v Wade.  They had no obligation to tell the truth.
    I know you and so many other people here don't want to hear it, but the US is a federal republic, and the Constitution has this thing called the 10th Amendment, where any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are the sole domain of the states and the people, until otherwise amended.  There is a process to amend the constitution, you're welcome to use it.  The laws aren't wrong, the people who don't understand them are wrong.
    You want to put forward an amendment to mandate abortion access across the country?  Fine, there's a process to do that.   You don't get to skip it just because you feel like it (and if you do it anyway, mark my words, your opposition will do the same thing to you - if you don't follow the rules, the other side won't either).
    Oh and before you bring up the court that passed it in the first place?  Thurgood Marshall, Chief Justice at that time, was openly and proudly an activist, he abused his unelected position on the bench to pass edicts and admitted as much.  The 14th Amendment does not say anything about bodily autonomy, that's a lie, Ruth Bader Ginsburg of all people pointed this out.  She agreed with the principle of the ruling, but pointed out, correctly, that the ruling was illegal, and that by breaking the law in the first place, the pro-choice crowd gave ammunition to their opposition that ensured the debate will never end.  Shouldn't have broken the law in the first place.
  5. Downvote
    D0nt45k got a reaction from LifeIsStrange in The US Supreme Court   
    Those justices weren't under oath when they were asked about Roe v Wade.  They had no obligation to tell the truth.
    I know you and so many other people here don't want to hear it, but the US is a federal republic, and the Constitution has this thing called the 10th Amendment, where any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are the sole domain of the states and the people, until otherwise amended.  There is a process to amend the constitution, you're welcome to use it.  The laws aren't wrong, the people who don't understand them are wrong.
    You want to put forward an amendment to mandate abortion access across the country?  Fine, there's a process to do that.   You don't get to skip it just because you feel like it (and if you do it anyway, mark my words, your opposition will do the same thing to you - if you don't follow the rules, the other side won't either).
    Oh and before you bring up the court that passed it in the first place?  Thurgood Marshall, Chief Justice at that time, was openly and proudly an activist, he abused his unelected position on the bench to pass edicts and admitted as much.  The 14th Amendment does not say anything about bodily autonomy, that's a lie, Ruth Bader Ginsburg of all people pointed this out.  She agreed with the principle of the ruling, but pointed out, correctly, that the ruling was illegal, and that by breaking the law in the first place, the pro-choice crowd gave ammunition to their opposition that ensured the debate will never end.  Shouldn't have broken the law in the first place.
  6. cheer
    D0nt45k got a reaction from Janiseguchi in The US Supreme Court   
    Those justices weren't under oath when they were asked about Roe v Wade.  They had no obligation to tell the truth.
    I know you and so many other people here don't want to hear it, but the US is a federal republic, and the Constitution has this thing called the 10th Amendment, where any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are the sole domain of the states and the people, until otherwise amended.  There is a process to amend the constitution, you're welcome to use it.  The laws aren't wrong, the people who don't understand them are wrong.
    You want to put forward an amendment to mandate abortion access across the country?  Fine, there's a process to do that.   You don't get to skip it just because you feel like it (and if you do it anyway, mark my words, your opposition will do the same thing to you - if you don't follow the rules, the other side won't either).
    Oh and before you bring up the court that passed it in the first place?  Thurgood Marshall, Chief Justice at that time, was openly and proudly an activist, he abused his unelected position on the bench to pass edicts and admitted as much.  The 14th Amendment does not say anything about bodily autonomy, that's a lie, Ruth Bader Ginsburg of all people pointed this out.  She agreed with the principle of the ruling, but pointed out, correctly, that the ruling was illegal, and that by breaking the law in the first place, the pro-choice crowd gave ammunition to their opposition that ensured the debate will never end.  Shouldn't have broken the law in the first place.
  7. Downvote
    D0nt45k got a reaction from LifeIsStrange in The US Supreme Court   
    No idea.
    Here's my two cents on that particular ruling: all the SCOTUS ruling on that case did was kick the debate back to the state level where it belongs.  Now the states that want it can have it with even less restrictions than before, and the ones that don't can ban it or restrict it further.
    Note, also, that the original ruling in Roe v Wade was illegal, per the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg of all people (according to a piece she wrote while head of the ACLU).  SCOTUS made up a law that didn't actually exist, that's one problem.  The other problem was that the plaintiff in the case admitted after the fact that she made the whole thing up, and in literally any other court case, perjury would be grounds to throw the ruling out and declare it a mistrial.
    Now, for the record, I'm not even going to get into my own views on the matter, I'm just pointing out that there's a legal way to pass laws, and that requires one of two procedures to be followed.  If the pro-choice crowd wants an abortion law on the books at the federal level, they can have it, they just have to pass it legally through Congress or via a constitutional convention.  SCOTUS, on the other hand, finally did what it was supposed to do.  Their job isn't to pass laws, it's not to "read the room", it's not even to make judgements based on the "greater good", it's to ask one simple question: "is this constitutional or not?"  The actions of the prior court were illegal, so they struck the old ruling down, and rightfully so.

    And to those who might say "to hell with procedure"...be very careful what you wish for, because if you do that and establish a precedent, you'd better believe it'll be used against you later, the Constitution puts limits on the power of government to protect you, not to hinder you.  Never assume that the other side won't gain power one day.
  8. Downvote
    D0nt45k got a reaction from TVGuy in The US Supreme Court   
    No idea.
    Here's my two cents on that particular ruling: all the SCOTUS ruling on that case did was kick the debate back to the state level where it belongs.  Now the states that want it can have it with even less restrictions than before, and the ones that don't can ban it or restrict it further.
    Note, also, that the original ruling in Roe v Wade was illegal, per the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg of all people (according to a piece she wrote while head of the ACLU).  SCOTUS made up a law that didn't actually exist, that's one problem.  The other problem was that the plaintiff in the case admitted after the fact that she made the whole thing up, and in literally any other court case, perjury would be grounds to throw the ruling out and declare it a mistrial.
    Now, for the record, I'm not even going to get into my own views on the matter, I'm just pointing out that there's a legal way to pass laws, and that requires one of two procedures to be followed.  If the pro-choice crowd wants an abortion law on the books at the federal level, they can have it, they just have to pass it legally through Congress or via a constitutional convention.  SCOTUS, on the other hand, finally did what it was supposed to do.  Their job isn't to pass laws, it's not to "read the room", it's not even to make judgements based on the "greater good", it's to ask one simple question: "is this constitutional or not?"  The actions of the prior court were illegal, so they struck the old ruling down, and rightfully so.

    And to those who might say "to hell with procedure"...be very careful what you wish for, because if you do that and establish a precedent, you'd better believe it'll be used against you later, the Constitution puts limits on the power of government to protect you, not to hinder you.  Never assume that the other side won't gain power one day.
  9. Upvote
    D0nt45k got a reaction from Janiseguchi in The US Supreme Court   
    No idea.
    Here's my two cents on that particular ruling: all the SCOTUS ruling on that case did was kick the debate back to the state level where it belongs.  Now the states that want it can have it with even less restrictions than before, and the ones that don't can ban it or restrict it further.
    Note, also, that the original ruling in Roe v Wade was illegal, per the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg of all people (according to a piece she wrote while head of the ACLU).  SCOTUS made up a law that didn't actually exist, that's one problem.  The other problem was that the plaintiff in the case admitted after the fact that she made the whole thing up, and in literally any other court case, perjury would be grounds to throw the ruling out and declare it a mistrial.
    Now, for the record, I'm not even going to get into my own views on the matter, I'm just pointing out that there's a legal way to pass laws, and that requires one of two procedures to be followed.  If the pro-choice crowd wants an abortion law on the books at the federal level, they can have it, they just have to pass it legally through Congress or via a constitutional convention.  SCOTUS, on the other hand, finally did what it was supposed to do.  Their job isn't to pass laws, it's not to "read the room", it's not even to make judgements based on the "greater good", it's to ask one simple question: "is this constitutional or not?"  The actions of the prior court were illegal, so they struck the old ruling down, and rightfully so.

    And to those who might say "to hell with procedure"...be very careful what you wish for, because if you do that and establish a precedent, you'd better believe it'll be used against you later, the Constitution puts limits on the power of government to protect you, not to hinder you.  Never assume that the other side won't gain power one day.
  10. Upvote
    D0nt45k got a reaction from brofist12 in Do you think that ANTIFA is a terrorist organisation?   
    Depends, what was he doing?  If he was just standing there or shouting invective, that doesn't give you the right to attack him just for speaking, no matter how much he angers you with his bigotry, and for the record, I despise neo-nazis, but I still wouldn't assault one just for their beliefs alone. Before you ask, I would say the same thing if a communist was attacked under identical circumstances by somebody right-wing - I may not agree with what you're saying, I might even find it abhorrent, but I'll defend your right to say it with my life (now, if you decide to act on your beliefs and start attacking people physically, that's different, I would argue it's justified in those circumstances to put somebody down before they cause further harm).
    When you attack somebody for speaking with the intent to silence them, you aren't proving yourself right, you're displaying fear of what he has to say.
  11. laugh
    D0nt45k got a reaction from Tentacool in Any Video Games with omorashi?   
    Death Stranding actually has it if you can believe it (I'd suspected that Hideo Kojima had a piss fetish from all the wetting in the Metal Gear series, this removed all doubt).  Not only is the main character's bladder volume something you keep track of, but their urine (and other bodily fluids) can be used to craft a type of grenade...
    Unfortunately, because either Kojima is a goddamned troll or something about his own preferences (towards the fetish, not sex as a whole, if the alleged "friends-with-benefits" relationship he has with JAV star Hitomi Tanaka is anything to go by), it's exclusively male-oriented, just like all the aforementioned wetting scenes in the Metal Gear series...seriously, would it have killed him to have Sniper Wolf, Meryl, or Eva piss themselves at some point?
  12. Downvote
    D0nt45k got a reaction from LifeIsStrange in Do you think that ANTIFA is a terrorist organisation?   
    I'd phrase this a little differently if I were you.  I do agree that they have the right to speak, like everyone else, and trying to silence them probably has the opposite of the intended effect (accusing people of being Nazis when they clearly aren't doesn't help their case either).  Of course, they can be acted against if they threaten, slander, or defraud somebody.  The thing some people (i.e. Antifa) don't get is that you can't punish somebody until after they've committed a crime.
    To bring this back on the original topic, Antifa sees the mere existence of these people (and anybody else that disagrees with their cause) as a crime, and act accordingly, once again often accomplishing the exact opposite of what they claim to want.  There are times when violence is justified, but so far, in none of the cases where Antifa has attacked people or property has that been the case.
  13. Downvote
    D0nt45k got a reaction from LifeIsStrange in Do you think that ANTIFA is a terrorist organisation?   
    Depends, what was he doing?  If he was just standing there or shouting invective, that doesn't give you the right to attack him just for speaking, no matter how much he angers you with his bigotry, and for the record, I despise neo-nazis, but I still wouldn't assault one just for their beliefs alone. Before you ask, I would say the same thing if a communist was attacked under identical circumstances by somebody right-wing - I may not agree with what you're saying, I might even find it abhorrent, but I'll defend your right to say it with my life (now, if you decide to act on your beliefs and start attacking people physically, that's different, I would argue it's justified in those circumstances to put somebody down before they cause further harm).
    When you attack somebody for speaking with the intent to silence them, you aren't proving yourself right, you're displaying fear of what he has to say.
  14. laugh
    D0nt45k got a reaction from Kiwi_Rebecca_C in WHAT IF... ladies could pee like this??   
    What kind of drugs are you on...and where might a law-abiding American acquire some?
  15. Upvote
    D0nt45k got a reaction from Hopeful in Is solidarity wetting actually a thing?   
    I can say from talking to other people that sometimes it happens, but it's not a common thing.
  16. Downvote
    D0nt45k got a reaction from LifeIsStrange in What's the word for incels who don't hate women but still can't meet anyone?   
    And to add insult to injury, if we fuck up at any one of those points, it can be considered "sexual harassment" (which is itself often a double standard, I've found - if she likes you, it's flirting, if she doesn't, it's harassment), and the consequences of even being accused can include, but aren't limited to, losing your job, getting assaulted by white knights, or even fines and jail time, all on an accusation of a "crime" with a subjective definition.  That's not even getting into the other risks that men face that women don't have to put up with nearly as often.  For many guys, it's just not worth the risk, the pain, and the humiliation, and they check out entirely.
    The double standards don't help either.  As far as society is concerned, when a man can't find a partner, it's his fault, but when a woman can't find a partner for identical reasons...it's still our fault, somehow, for...having standards, which is something only women are allowed to have?  If that's not the intent, that's what we're being told anyway.
  17. Upvote
    D0nt45k got a reaction from amasonbo1 in The "weird side" of omo.org   
    I suspect that eventually they'll just resort to copouts like "Don't Ask".
  18. love
    D0nt45k got a reaction from Ms. Tito in Peeing in sea as a girl   
    As I like to say: there are two kinds of people, those who pee while swimming, and those who lie about it.
  19. Upvote
    D0nt45k got a reaction from Bachridon in Do you think that ANTIFA is a terrorist organisation?   
    I used them purely as a hypothetical example.  I'm well aware that the worst they've been accused of that can actually be proven beyond a shadow of doubt is being a nuisance, and even that's spurious in many cases.  Antifa, on the other hand?  Cases where they got let off the hook by sympathetic DAs notwithstanding, has had members convicted of crimes up to and including attempted murder.  However, unlike their right-wing or centrist counterparts, they're allowed to get away with it, because certain, powerful people use them as shock troops whenever they need their opposition intimidated.
    On the subject of the original organization, I'm referring to the group that first explicitly called themselves Antifa, "Anti-Fascist Aktion", a militant group operating in Weimar Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s and was explicitly formed and supported by Germany's Communist Party.  Their modern descendants use both their name and iconography, along with tactics borrowed from Mussolini's blackshirts..which, again, doesn't surprise anybody that actually does any reading on what kind of beliefs form the cornerstone of fascism instead of just accepting communist propaganda as fact; fascism and communism are both different strains of socialism, and naziism is yet another strain (where they differ is the foundation of their ideological "struggle", for communism it's class, for fascism it's nationality, for naziism it's race), and too many small-minded people just dismiss this out of hand because they've been lied to for a lifetime about exactly where all those ideologies came from.
  20. Upvote
    D0nt45k got a reaction from Bachridon in Do you think that ANTIFA is a terrorist organisation?   
    And you certainly have every right to be concerned, just as they have the right to defend themselves from people like you if you decide to throw the first punch.  Doesn't help that, again, the definition of what qualifies as "fascism" in the eyes of most far leftists seems to be "anybody or anything we don't like."  This is the pattern of behavior I've observed from them numerous times, in person.  If they were just fighting actual fascists, I wouldn't be as concerned, but they go after centrists, milquetoast conservatives, and liberals as well.
    Also, you do realize that the original Antifa was explicitly a militant group affiliated with Germany's Communist Party, right?  Of course, knowing the average political persuasion of people here, you might see that as a plus.  For my part, I loathe totalitarianism regardless of whether it's left wing or right wing.  We didn't fight off one form of oppression just to submit to another one.
  21. love
    D0nt45k got a reaction from Bachridon in Do you think that ANTIFA is a terrorist organisation?   
    You don't need to be centralized to be terrorists (indeed, often the most successful groups of these sorts are really a collection of loosely affiliated cells rather than a centralized entity), what defines a terrorist are their motives and methods.  Their motivation, if you actually look past the rhetoric, is explicitly political (they're a loose collection of anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists, and in some cases straight up tankies that only have a few common goals in mind), and seeing as violently assaulting their opposition and destroying private property both fit their MO, they fit the bill.  Of course there's also the opportunists consisting largely of angry teens and 20-somethings that just want an excuse to break shit and the safety of numbers to maximize the chances they can get away with it, but that's another matter entirely.
    Not helping their case is how...broad their definition of "fascist" tends to be.  If you ask the average member, it seems like anybody right of Bernie Sanders is a fascist by their standards.
    And another thing, I know that the majority of the active users here are probably left-wing, judging by the political compass thread, so the fact that some of you might sympathize with their stated politics might give you rose-tinted glasses when looking at them.  Try to be objective and ask yourself this: "if an equally diffuse right-wing group (let's use the Proud Boys as an example - they're similarly decentralized with little if any coordination between chapters) was doing the exact same thing they were, but targeted leftists, would I consider it terrorism?"  If it's terrorism when one side does it and not when the other side does the exact same thing, then you are a partisan hypocrite, and part of the problem.
  22. Upvote
    D0nt45k got a reaction from Bachridon in Do you think that ANTIFA is a terrorist organisation?   
    Yes.  They explicitly try to invoke fear with the aim of using it to affect political change.  The only reason they aren't officially treated as terrorists is because certain people in high places use them as shock troops whenever they need some muscle on the streets.
    It's also kind-of ironic for them (and the original Antifa from Weimar-era Germany in fact) to call themselves "anti-fascist" while wearing the uniform and embracing the practices of Mussolini's blackshirts.  Of course, the only real differences between the various forms of socialism (which include fascism, read up on how it started - the idea of fascism being "right wing" is an explicitly communist one) are tautological - even if they claim to all want something different, the end result is the same if they ever seize power: totalitarianism and suffering on a mass scale - so this doesn't surprise me.
  23. love
    D0nt45k got a reaction from StarCommand in Do you think that ANTIFA is a terrorist organisation?   
    Yes.  They explicitly try to invoke fear with the aim of using it to affect political change.  The only reason they aren't officially treated as terrorists is because certain people in high places use them as shock troops whenever they need some muscle on the streets.
    It's also kind-of ironic for them (and the original Antifa from Weimar-era Germany in fact) to call themselves "anti-fascist" while wearing the uniform and embracing the practices of Mussolini's blackshirts.  Of course, the only real differences between the various forms of socialism (which include fascism, read up on how it started - the idea of fascism being "right wing" is an explicitly communist one) are tautological - even if they claim to all want something different, the end result is the same if they ever seize power: totalitarianism and suffering on a mass scale - so this doesn't surprise me.
  24. Upvote
    D0nt45k got a reaction from SirPAlot in Cut or uncut - what do you prefer?   
    You're not wrong, it's basically assumed that parents want it done by default in the US unless you tell them not to, much to my annoyance since it was done to me.  I think it should be illegal to perform on anybody that isn't of legal age unless for a reason of medical necessity, even if that means violating the religious and cultural freedoms of certain people; I mean, the UN has universally condemned the female equivalent, which has also been made illegal in just about every first world country as far as I know, so it's only fair.
    Oh, and if you ever even think of questioning the ethics of this, or whether there's any real medical benefits at all...well, certain special interest groups (you can probably guess which ones) with very deep pockets and friends in high places tend to get very angry at you...and they can be very vindictive in punishing you for it.
  25. Upvote
    D0nt45k got a reaction from Gamerman in Have you ever peed yourself while gaming?   
    No, but I know somebody who did.
×
×
  • Create New...