Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Congratulations Alabama!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #26
    Even if the Shinners are pro choice now, those Concerned Taigy Farmers Agisnt Abortion fucks that make up the bulk of the SDLP are still anti choice. Why the fuck is UK Labour still backing the Fianna Fáil aligned wanks?
    Last edited by Lang Spoon; 15-05-2019, 18:29.

    Comment


      #27
      Originally posted by Lang Spoon View Post
      We don't have direct rule we have suspended assembly and a hamstrung civil service running things. Direct rule would involve fucking Bradley signing Ministerial Orders. It would also need Irish govt involvement under the GFA, assuming you could trust Teh Dirty Brits to keep to a treaty.
      Oh.

      So it's our fault is it.

      And here's me thinking it's the Shinners obsessing about the single issue greenwash scandal and the no surrender fuckers.


      Comment


        #28
        No what I'm saying is if Bradley actually invokes direct rule the Irish Govt would also have a say in the running of the North. No fucker wants that yet. I also imagine the UK govt would try to get out of that requirement. I know fine and well this is a game of shite between two horrible parties. Unfortunately the biggest parties in The Dirty Six.

        Comment


          #29
          Originally posted by Lang Spoon View Post
          No what I'm saying is if Bradley actually invokes direct rule the Irish Govt would also have a say in the running of the North. No fucker wants that yet. I also imagine the UK govt would try to get out of that requirement. I know fine and well this is a game of shite between two horrible parties. Unfortunately the biggest parties in The Dirty Six.
          Yep.

          Heaven forfend anyone anywhere gives up even an inch of their power and influence to do something right to improve the lives of the people they are supposed to represent.

          A pox on all of the fuckers.

          Comment


            #30
            Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
            Ton Ton, there is a significant benefit in terms of fundraising and "energising the base" from extreme takes on either side of this issue.
            Fair dos.

            Comment


              #31
              Originally posted by Guy Profumo View Post

              Get a pet MP to introduce a bill the government are sympathetic too?
              That doesn't really work - MPs don't really introduce bills to any significant extent in the normal course of things.

              The UK absolutely is corrupt, in its lawmaking as in so many other ways, but this particular thing doesn't happen here.

              Comment


                #32
                Sorry to come back to this, but what are the downsides for the Yahoos here? What are the negative consequences if Roberts upholds Roe? Does it mean that Roe can't come back in front of the supremes for a long period? Does it dishearten all those activists who thought they had a judicial majority, causing them to just give up?

                I'm struggling to see why this overreach has a downside for the crazies.

                Comment


                  #33
                  Originally posted by TonTon View Post

                  That doesn't really work - MPs don't really introduce bills to any significant extent in the normal course of things.

                  The UK absolutely is corrupt, in its lawmaking as in so many other ways, but this particular thing doesn't happen here.
                  Departments can be captured but. Esp if a Minister puts his placemen over Proper civil servants.
                  Last edited by Lang Spoon; 15-05-2019, 21:09.

                  Comment


                    #34
                    SB, it probably does mean that Roe wouldn't be reconsidered for some time. But the more concrete downside for them is that some of the funders and single issue voters are likely to feel that they are being taken for granted and pulling back.

                    Comment


                      #35
                      It also means that state law will remain as it is through this being ruled out, rather than them getting something less extreme with similar effects.

                      Comment


                        #36
                        Originally posted by TonTon View Post

                        That doesn't really work - MPs don't really introduce bills to any significant extent in the normal course of things.

                        The UK absolutely is corrupt, in its lawmaking as in so many other ways, but this particular thing doesn't happen here.
                        Ok.

                        Comment


                          #37
                          Thanks Ursus. That makes sense. My instincts say that that's a very optimistic viewpoint.

                          Comment


                            #38
                            Typically excellent piece from Dahlia Lithwick

                            https://twitter.com/Slate/status/1129045041874460676

                            In his statement on Alabama’s Senate floor Tuesday, Chambliss also clarified that he was not a doctor or even fully capable of understanding how a woman could know when she was pregnant. “But from what I’ve read, what I’ve been told, there’s some period of time before you can know a woman is pregnant.” Chambliss then argued that his bill required no rape or incest exception because under the new law a woman could still get an abortion as long as she didn’t know she was pregnant. “If we pass this bill, my hope is that all ladies will be educated by their parents or guardians that should a situation like this occur, you need to go get help immediately so they could get the physical help they need. If they wait, justice delayed is justice denied.”

                            Nobody actually understood what he was even talking about. “How can someone know they need to make an appointment if they don’t know they’re pregnant?” the National Abortion Federation tweeted. “This bill is absurd.” That makes things awkward for Brett Kavanaugh.
                            Not to be outdone, Alabama Pro-Life Coalition President Eric Johnston told NPR that he crafted the Alabama abortion ban to reach the high court on a fast track with the not-at-all ghoulish hopes that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will die and be replaced by a judge appointed by President Donald Trump: “The strategy here is that we will win this,” he said. “There are a lot of factors. And the main one is two new judges that may give the ability to have Roe reviewed. And Justice Ginsburg—no one knows about her health.” Johnston further clarified for CNN that while the amendment to exempt rape and incest victims is “sympathetic” and “deals with very difficult issues,” it would upend the law’s legal standing. “Regardless of how the conception takes place, the product is a child, and so we’re saying that that unborn child is a person entitled to protection of law,” he added. “So if, be it a rape or incest conception, then it would be impossible to ask a judge which of these is protected by law and which is not.”

                            Comment


                              #39
                              They're completely insane, but there is an internal logic to this: “So if, be it a rape or incest conception, then it would be impossible to ask a judge which of these is protected by law and which is not.”

                              If you're making the ridiculous claim that a couple of cells is a human being, then it follows that you shouldn't be able to make the exceptions.

                              Comment


                                #40
                                One of the darker parts of the story is that they actually had two women who were victims of incestuous rape speak up against the bill. That really is the kind of thing you like to imagine away as simply not existing.

                                Comment


                                  #41
                                  Though that "internal logic" is completely betrayed by their insistence that fertilized embryos outside of a woman's body are completely different from those within one and have absolutely none of the "personhood" rights the bill conveys to the latter

                                  Comment


                                    #42
                                    I wonder if it is linked to this?

                                    See the ethnic makeup of the ladies in the picture to see who they are talking about.
                                    https://www.npr.org/2019/05/15/72351...t-record-level

                                    These Laws are to get the White women in line and forcing them to have White babies as part of the ongoing race war.

                                    My hope is that the sisters stay out of this nonsense.

                                    Comment


                                      #43
                                      It will be easier for white women to evade the laws, though, so we will see a net black on white population increase. I would think that a white supremacist would want to encourage abortion.

                                      Comment


                                        #44
                                        Originally posted by Satchmo Distel View Post
                                        It will be easier for white women to evade the laws, though, so we will see a net black on white population increase. I would think that a white supremacist would want to encourage abortion.
                                        Not really, White supremacists don't really care about stopping the procreation of black women. They have no problem shooting suspected pregnant black women or killing black kids.
                                        Plus, it's hard for black women to get pregnant if all the men are locked up.

                                        This Law if primarily to control white women who want to have better control who they are procreating with whilst allowing them to continue to "get their groove on" so to speak.

                                        Comment


                                          #45
                                          Originally posted by Guy Profumo View Post
                                          I still want to know how outsiders introduce bills.

                                          How can that be legitimate in a democracy?
                                          They don't directly introduce legislation. They write it and then get one of the legislators they bought to introduce it.

                                          It's not a bad idea, in the abstract, for legislators to listen to outside experts and organized constituencies. But money ruins everything.


                                          A lot of editorials and commenters say that Alabama and other conservative state's refusal to actually care for mothers and children proves that their anti-abortion laws are just about controlling poor women. I agree that that is their ultimate effect, and should be resisted on that basis, but there isn't good reason to assume that religious conservatives' world view has any kind of internal logic, even a nasty one. A huge part of American religion has been bought out by white supremacists and capitalists who are using it for their own ends, and ensuring that what they're selling actually makes sense, let alone helps people, isn't a priority.

                                          I don't know if that makes things more or less hopeful.

                                          Comment


                                            #46
                                            Héctor Bellerín - crickey!

                                            "urges men to oppose Alabama abortion law"


                                            https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/metro...w-9595009/amp/

                                            Comment


                                              #47
                                              That's three threads it's on.

                                              Comment


                                                #48
                                                My 15.year old son says it's great that he speaks out like this as when he plays football he's pretty crap.

                                                Throwaway comment, obviously.

                                                Comment


                                                  #49
                                                  Originally posted by Nocturnal Submission View Post
                                                  That's three threads it's on.
                                                  Mea maxima culpa, magister

                                                  Comment


                                                    #50
                                                    Originally posted by Sporting View Post
                                                    My 15.year old son says it's great that he speaks out like this as when he plays football he's pretty crap.

                                                    Throwaway comment, obviously.
                                                    Might be time for your son to start looking for another sport.

                                                    Darts, for example?

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X