Banter The Adelaide Board Politics/COVID Thread Part 2 (WARNING NOT FOR THE FAINT-HEARTED)

Remove this Banner Ad

Kane McGoodwin

TheBrownDog
May 21, 2001
68,170
64,389
Floating around the Universe
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide Crows
But the decision brings USA in line with how Australia determines abortion laws. So again, how was it backward and a joke for a so called western country when it brings them in line with other western countries?
Which Australian states have made abortion illegal?
None!

Many American states have made abortion illegal!

If you can't tell the difference, I can't help you!

Women in Australia don't need to travel to another state or country to have an abortion like in the USA!
 

Crow till I die

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 6, 2017
19,017
20,619
AFL Club
Adelaide
Given the Supreme Court was stacked by the Trump administration with Christian fundamentalists, this is one way... but some State Governors are of similar thinking.

So called modern society... not!
This is what I don't get. When the court passes judgments that align with what the progressives want (Read any decision), that same court is fine right and all that is good in the world. For what it is worth,go and have a look at how many times Justice Roberts has sided with Sotomeyer, Ginsberg, Breyer etc.

This time, the court has deemed the constitution has no provision for abortion and has sent it back to the states. Instead of the violence, threats, intimidation that is forthcoming from the extreme left end - how about they gin up the vote to get the people at state level to pass laws / amend laws to suit what the large majority of people want. Threatening to kill supreme court justices is not the way a civilized society acts...
 

adelaidecrows

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2010
15,542
15,378
Wasleys
AFL Club
Adelaide
No s**t Sherlock so it’s now the same system in USA as we have in Australia.

So explain this comment then: The latest USA supreme court decision is a joke for a so-called western country in this century.

Yes, the supreme court is carrying out a republican narrative on laws because they legally can and expected too. Americans are virtually a prisoner to these judges who are free to do what they like with federal laws. They are a backwards country through greed and party politics.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kane McGoodwin

TheBrownDog
May 21, 2001
68,170
64,389
Floating around the Universe
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide Crows
This is what I don't get. When the court passes judgments that align with what the progressives want (Read any decision), that same court is fine right and all that is good in the world. For what it is worth,go and have a look at how many times Justice Roberts has sided with Sotomeyer, Ginsberg, Breyer etc.

This time, the court has deemed the constitution has no provision for abortion and has sent it back to the states. Instead of the violence, threats, intimidation that is forthcoming from the extreme left end - how about they gin up the vote to get the people at state level to pass laws / amend laws to suit what the large majority of people want. Threatening to kill supreme court justices is not the way a civilized society acts...
Where have I threatened supreme court justices or anyone for that matter? Just said they have been stacked with Christian fundamentalists with narrow-minded views.

Bottom line is the USA can't say it's a progressive country where it's not possible to have a safe abortion in many parts of the country.

They are going backwards with social reform... but don't worry, they still have a right to high powered weapons...
 

Kane McGoodwin

TheBrownDog
May 21, 2001
68,170
64,389
Floating around the Universe
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide Crows
Yes, the supreme court is carrying out a republican narrative on laws because they legally can and expected too. Americans are virtually a prisoner to these judges who are free to do what they like with federal laws. They are a backwards country through greed and party politics.
If the USA politicians were funded by abortion clinics like they were the arms industry, you can be sure having an abortion safely would be possible in all of the USA.
 

kirky

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 29, 2000
19,925
16,409
AFL Club
Adelaide
Its unconstitutional - the federal district was specifically set aside and to not operate as a state. The good people of Washington DC are already part of a the district of Columbia

The District of Columbia’s creation is rooted in Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, which says that the “Seat of the Government of the United States” shall be a district that is at most ten square miles and separate and apart from the other “particular States.”

Well the Constitution could be amended if necessary within terms of the original Constitution. There have been many amendments since the original Constitution.

You do understand that District of Columbia is Washington DC - they are one and the same.

Why should the electors of Washington be disenfranchised whilst states like Vermont and Wyoming who have less residents?
 

kirky

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 29, 2000
19,925
16,409
AFL Club
Adelaide
Lucky for you kirky that you welched on the bet


Obviously you have issues - get over it.

I sleep very well at night thank you very much.

PS : did you read the article at all?
 

fortunatecrow

Club Legend
Oct 17, 2015
2,330
2,879
AFL Club
Adelaide
Last edited:

Crow till I die

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 6, 2017
19,017
20,619
AFL Club
Adelaide
Where have I threatened supreme court justices or anyone for that matter? Just said they have been stacked with Christian fundamentalists with narrow-minded views.

Bottom line is the USA can't say it's a progressive country where it's not possible to have a safe abortion in many parts of the country.

They are going backwards with social reform... but don't worry, they still have a right to high powered weapons...
Not you you banana - I am not saying anyone here has. Over there its a different story and when you have democrat senators and congress members openly using threatening rhetoric towards them, it sets an absolutely terrible example and will end up having dire consequences

Not something discussed on here is Roe V Wade has been in force for some 50 years. There has always been speculation it might one day get overturned. Now it seems there have been many people asleep at the wheel in the states with anti abortion laws as it would seem there have been many many opportunities to challenge them via the ballot box. That they have not been and we arrive where we are today seems more a result of poor planning on the part of the pro abortion lobby.

The other aspect to this is why was Roe V Wade never codified federally? Obama had a near filibuster breaking majority between 2009-2011 when he effectively had 59 supportive senators and a huge house majority.

 

Crow till I die

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 6, 2017
19,017
20,619
AFL Club
Adelaide
Well the Constitution could be amended if necessary within terms of the original Constitution. There have been many amendments since the original Constitution.

You do understand that District of Columbia is Washington DC - they are one and the same.

Why should the electors of Washington be disenfranchised whilst states like Vermont and Wyoming who have less residents?
Except for that 10 square mile area designated at the country's capital. The founding fathers were clever enough to be wary of people like you:)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

adelaidecrows

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2010
15,542
15,378
Wasleys
AFL Club
Adelaide
Not you you banana - I am not saying anyone here has. Over there its a different story and when you have democrat senators and congress members openly using threatening rhetoric towards them, it sets an absolutely terrible example and will end up having dire consequences

Not something not discussed on here is Roe V Wade has been in force for some 50 years. There has always been speculation it might one day get overturned. Now it seems there have been many people asleep at the wheel in the states with anti abortion laws as it would seem there have been many many opportunities to challenge them via the ballot box. That they have not been and we arrive where we are today seems more a result of poor planning on the part of the pro abortion lobby.

The other aspect to this is why was Roe V Wade never codified federally? Obama had a near filibuster breaking majority between 2009-2011 when he effectively had 59 supportive senators and a huge house majority.


Is it a terrible example to threaten people who openly don't give a s**t about you and make laws that could potentially kill you? Its hard to blame people for that is it not? I don't condone it but at the same time, the Judge have to own their decision and the fact its going to be highly controversial and people will get angry. If they want to appease the anger, they should hit the media and allow themselves to be interviewed and show empathy to those the decision is affecting. But they wont they virtually hide because they are gutless and dont want to answer for their decision.
 

Bearded Clam

Premium Platinum
Oct 13, 2017
13,348
20,829
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool, Glenelg,
I’m sorry. Was your hysterical, expletive-laden ranting over the past few pages your attempt at engaging in a mature debate?
So believing that a woman should have the right to decide to have an abortion and that the decision of when that occurs is no elses business but that of the woman with the advice and support of their doctor.. and that everyone should just butt out of other peoples private lives is a hysterical position to take is it?.

Wow.. You really are a strange one..

Now if you think there are numerous women getting pregnant, going nearly full term and then out of the blue just deliberately deciding “meh, I couldnt be bothered with this pregnancy anymore” and aborting it.. then go ahead, provide us with the actual medical statistics to back this up.

But i think you will find that women that choose late term abortions are doing so due to circumstances (medical one’s) beyond their control and often a risk to their own lives. And the other thing you will very quickly find is that “late term abortion” isnt even a recognised medical terminology and that it is even precisely defined. So maybe you can start there.

So.. Until you can provide this.. this whole pathetic “late term” emotional bullshit argument is a load of horseshit that the anti brigade love to deceptively focus on and blatently lie about because their arguments are s**t to start with.

And expletive laden?.. i say the word fck every paragraph or so.. its a but over the top to be classing that as expletive-laden dont you think.
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Oct 14, 2005
49,205
32,301
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
Well the Constitution could be amended if necessary within terms of the original Constitution. There have been many amendments since the original Constitution.

You do understand that District of Columbia is Washington DC - they are one and the same.

Why should the electors of Washington be disenfranchised whilst states like Vermont and Wyoming who have less residents?
I could ask you the same question about the ACT, which has 5x Federal representatives (3x House of Reps, 2x Senate) - compared to Tasmania's 17 (5 & 12), despite both having similar populations (467K vs 526K).
 

Crow till I die

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 6, 2017
19,017
20,619
AFL Club
Adelaide
Is it a terrible example to threaten people who openly don't give a s**t about you and make laws that could potentially kill you? Its hard to blame people for that is it not? I don't condone it but at the same time, the Judge have to own their decision and the fact its going to be highly controversial and people will get angry. If they want to appease the anger, they should hit the media and allow themselves to be interviewed and show empathy to those the decision is affecting. But they wont they virtually hide because they are gutless and dont want to answer for their decision.
So by that example, it should be open season on every democrat supporting defunding the police, every democrat that disobeys federal immigration laws regarding illegals entering the country etc etc

Your statement in a civilized society is just so ridiculous because if you follow through on that line of thinking, both sides will devolve into threatening to kill when they don't get their way. I thought the left (and make no mistake, they are the ones out there protesting and threatening) were supposed to be tolerant or so we are told
 

kirky

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 29, 2000
19,925
16,409
AFL Club
Adelaide
I could ask you the same question about the ACT, which has 5x Federal representatives - compared to Tasmania's 17, despite both having very similar populations.

Can they get statehood if we amend our Constitution (Sec 125)? Just wondering.
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Oct 14, 2005
49,205
32,301
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
Can they get statehood if we amend our Constitution? Just wondering.
The ACT is similar to the District of Columbia.
  • Both were carved out of existing states as a result of the country's founding fathers' decision to place the Capital somewhere neutral.
  • Both would require constitutional changes in order to become states.
  • Both have populations whose populations are massively under-represented in their respective Federal parliaments, as a result of their lack of statehood - something which the founding fathers failed to consider when writing the respective constitutions.
Both have a genuine case, now, for constitutional change - allowing them to become states in their own right, ending their disenfranchisement.
 

adelaidecrows

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2010
15,542
15,378
Wasleys
AFL Club
Adelaide


Electorally, it could prove to be a massive brain fart. Doesn't take Einstein to figure out that there are a high % of women and they vote. To operate at the height of arrogance all because you have the weight of numbers on a supreme court to run a republican agenda doesn't mean you should. There were no votes in this decision for the republicans, this decision was nothing more than the republican party sticking it to democratic voters, especially in states that were once red states. They figure the anger will die down by the next presidential election and they can distance themselves from the states. There is also a theory being floated that this decision was politically motivated to stop democratic voters moving into cheaper red states from california or new york etc because they will potentially grow to numbers that could turn those states blue. Arizona is one such state and so is New Mexico that have complained californians influenced the election result because they moved. It would not surprise me in the least if there were some strategies at play.
 

Remove this Banner Ad