• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The meltdown has been epic

Deuce said:
I would just cite national defense necessity and dare them to try and stop me. Troops gotta be combat ready.
Click to expand...
That may be one of the strategies under consideration. It's a sad fact that 1 in 4 servicewomen report being sexually assaulted. Pregnancies occurring from that would be eligible for abortion.
 
i think the funniest thing about this OP is the guy has no idea that the anger and backlash has just started.

everyone bookmark this thread.
 
Michael Cole said:
Doesn't have to be sponsored by the military. Private clinic on base. Private insurance covering the patients. The issue is jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
So states/cities do not have jurisdiction over military bases? I am ignorant of the policies. Private clinics would be an elegantly simple solution.
 
Peter said:
Yes, because republicans never turn to violence when decisions go against you and they never threaten violence when anyone suggests gun control.

Your side stormed the bloody capital building so you can't claim to be innocent.
Click to expand...

Your side stormed across America, burning, looting when BLM riots came.
 
It’s a historic victory for white life..

 
Argent said:
So states/cities do not have jurisdiction over military bases? I am ignorant of the policies. Private clinics would be an elegantly simple solution.
Click to expand...
I would imagine the law is not much different than when I was in.

Drinking age in Illinois in 1975 was 19 (beer and wine.) There was a private bar on base that served all of us, with 3.2 beer served to 17 and 18 year olds. Outside Great Lakes, it was illegal to serve 17 and 18 year olds any alcohol in a bar; 3.2 beer, 7% ale or 86 whiskey. So, I'm just guessing here, and it was a really long time ago, lol, but looks like the feds weren't bound to state law in how businesses operated on-base. No state tax in the PX, as well, but that's not private. Looks independent to me.
 
Last edited:
KLATTU said:
The drama queening and hyperbole have off the charts. Not just here but all over social media. ‘The justices lied!!!!!’ ‘They’re gonna take away everything!!!!’
Click to expand...
There are people, the real drama queens, on this very forum who couldn't handle being told to wear a mask because they claimed their freedom was in jeopardy. These people now think it is ok to restrict a woman's freedom to choose. How absurd is that, not to mention hypocritical?
 
Michael Cole said:
I would imagine the law is not much different than when I was in.
Click to expand...
I found this The U.S. Constitution provides that the federal government has exclusive legislative rights over certain federal territories – such as military bases, courthouses, and other official properties – if a state consents to the purchase of the territory.

and this,
1st DCA 1999): Court held that a state may assert jurisdiction over an offense committed on military base (Eglin Air Force Base) if there is no conflict with federal jurisdiction. The transfer of jurisdiction in this case was made pursuant to reciprocating federal and state statutes.

and I don't have a clue what either means relative to anti-abortion law.
 
Argent said:
I found this The U.S. Constitution provides that the federal government has exclusive legislative rights over certain federal territories – such as military bases, courthouses, and other official properties – if a state consents to the purchase of the territory.

and this,
1st DCA 1999): Court held that a state may assert jurisdiction over an offense committed on military base (Eglin Air Force Base) if there is no conflict with federal jurisdiction. The transfer of jurisdiction in this case was made pursuant to reciprocating federal and state statutes.

and I don't have a clue what either means relative to anti-abortion law.
Click to expand...
The first means the federal government enactys law on federal property.

The second seems to be just a transfer of jurisdiction. A crime was committed that violated both federal and state law (reciprocating federal and state statutes), but I'm not sure what is meant by pursuant.

Interesting. Thanks. Those are my uneducated guesses. Lol.
 
Some of the hysteria is no doubt sincere.

Some of it is just good politics.

The Dems were shaking in their boots at the upcoming Congressional elections.

But now that the Supreme Court has handed them this "gift," they are feeling more relaxed and confident that they can use this decision to stop any red wave.
 
vesper said:
I don't think I would use the word fascinating but rather the word revealing.
Click to expand...
You mean like the 2020 riots. They mostly peaceful.
 
Deuce said:
National defense concerns supersede your little religious crusade.
Click to expand...
Religious? In case you didn't know...... you don't have to be religious to think that chopping future children into pieces and throwing them in the garbage is wrong.
 
Peter said:
This is a huge decision and a big moment in history it was always going to elicit an emotional response.

The Justices clearly did lie and people are upset and being vocal about it.
Click to expand...

Which justices lied? I understand that it convenient subject being put forth by some democrat politicians, and then carried forward by the media, but there is no actual basis in fact to the claim that any of the most recent appointees to the Supreme Court lied during their confirmation hearing in regard to the typical questions regarding Roe V Wade. All of these are seasoned lawyers, and all of them were well aware of the types questions which would be asked of them during confirmation. And no nominee is ever required to pass any litmus test anyway, or indicate how they would vote on cases which may come before them in the future, and especially not cases unknown to them before they are confirmed.

The case which was finally heard which over turned Roe was not a matter before the court during any of the last 3 nominee hearings. Even if they answered questions about Roe, it was not Roe that was decided the other day, it was a case affected by Roe, and affected by Casey, which become a vehicle to overturn Roe. But my point is, none lied during their confirmation hearings. Listen carefully, none of them lied. Listen especially carefully to what Kavanaugh said about Roe and Casey, both subject to the limits available to states to enact, specifically in regard to fetal viability--- and then any undue burden the state must consider.








"as a general proposition, I understand the importance of the precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade. So Roe v. Wade held, of course, and it reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that a woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion before viability, subject to reasonable regulation by the state up to the point where that regulation constitutes an undue burden on the woman’s right to obtain an abortion." Brett Kavanaugh
 
tshade said:
The Dems have advocated 100 times more help for families and children over the last century, and in recent history. No comparison.
Click to expand...
Don't follow everyone knows Christian charity's in the US has no equal
 
KLATTU said:
The drama queening and hyperbole have off the charts. Not just here but all over social media. ‘The justices lied!!!!!’ ‘They’re gonna take away everything!!!!’
Click to expand...
When something has been a certain way for 5 decades, and many saw it as benefit, it will always be controversial to strip it away at the say-so of a handful of people.
 
Roger Duke said:
Religious? In case you didn't know...... you don't have to be religious to think that chopping future children into pieces and throwing them in the garbage is wrong.
Click to expand...

Drama much? You believe in the boogyman too?
 
US&THEM said:
Drama much? You believe in the boogyman too?
Click to expand...
Drama? Abortion doesn't take life away from future children?
In denial, are we? Feeling guilty because it is worded truthfully?
 
Peter said:
The Justices clearly did lie and people are upset and being vocal about it.
Click to expand...
Even if you were given the benefit of the doubt and the Justices did lie.....what do you see wrong about lying to save the lives of millions?
 
KLATTU said:
The drama queening and hyperbole have off the charts. Not just here but all over social media. ‘The justices lied!!!!!’ ‘They’re gonna take away everything!!!!’
Click to expand...

Think about it......they actually support the killing of babies. Sick people.....really.....sick in the head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom