Call out on C_Clayton_Jones

[Chuz Life]

1. I'm not religious

2. Your attempts to argue what should or should not be from a what is or what "has been in the past" is not going to fly with me. Neither will it fly with an objective SCOTUS.

SCOTUS won't overturn Roe. If they did, they would be admitting that they aren't really making constitutional rulings, just political ones.

It not just Roe, it's 45 years of rulings supporting Roe.

But you religious nutters and misogynists keep trying.

1.It's good, that you truly believe that the SCOTUS will never overturn Roe. You should have no problem with Trump replacing RBG with a Conservative.

My efforts will continue regardless of your predictions.

2. I'm still not religious.

3. As for your concerns about misogyny. Have you ever even once considered how much true misogynists are REWARDED by legalized abortion?

I bet not.

Check out @Chuz_Life’s Tweet: Chuz Life on Twitter

 

[JoeB131]

1.It's good, that you truly believe that the SCOTUS will never overturn Roe. You should have no problem with Trump replacing RBG with a Conservative.

My efforts will continue regardless of your predictions.

Um, given how much other damage another knuckle dragger can do on SCOTUS, I'd rather not take the chance.

But the point is, you keep being a useful idiot. Hey, do you ever wonder why abortion never gets banned and the rich always get their tax cuts? Hmmmm... bet you never spend much time thinking about that one.

2. I'm still not religious.

Sure you aren't.

3. As for your concerns about misogyny. Have you ever even once considered how much true misogynists are REWARDED by legalized abortion?

I bet not.

Well, no, because that assumes that women are delicate little flowers who can't make up their own minds. The alternative you suggest is that when a misogynist knocks a girl up, they end up living together after she's pretty much concluded he isn't good father material. That's just... crazy.

Every women I've known whose gotten abortion knew exactly what she was doing when she got pregnant and when she decided to end it.

When I was in the service, there was this girl who dated one of my friends. Keep in mind, this was in the bad old days when I was a right wing jerkwad with too much residual Catholicism. (I got over it.) Well, after this guy kept stringing her along about his promises to marry her, she decided to up the ante by stopping her birth control pills. When he refused to be bullied into a marriage he clearly was having second thoughts about, she got an abortion.

Why? Because she didn't want her strict Catholic, Asian parents to know she wasn't still a virgin at 22. No, really!

A year later, she got back with the same guy, knowing exactly what he was, got pregnant again, and the same result. I stopped talking to her at that point (I had stopped talking to him some time before that.)

 

[Chuz Life]

1.It's good, that you truly believe that the SCOTUS will never overturn Roe. You should have no problem with Trump replacing RBG with a Conservative.

My efforts will continue regardless of your predictions.

Um, given how much other damage another knuckle dragger can do on SCOTUS, I'd rather not take the chance.

Oh well. . .

Sucks to be you.

Cause, Bader aint Bernie.

But the point is, you keep being a useful idiot. Hey, do you ever wonder why abortion never gets banned and the rich always get their tax cuts? Hmmmm... bet you never spend much time thinking about that one.

You're right. I don't.

Care to explain why I should?

2. I'm still not religious.

Sure you aren't.

Place your bet.

3. As for your concerns about misogyny. Have you ever even once considered how much true misogynists are REWARDED by legalized abortion?

I bet not.

Well, no, because that assumes that women are delicate little flowers who can't make up their own minds. The alternative you suggest is that when a misogynist knocks a girl up, they end up living together after she's pretty much concluded he isn't good father material. That's just... crazy.

LoL.

Great.

The next time I read an article abouta man who killed a woman because she wouldn't abort or forced her to have one... I'll just remember what you said and I won't see the guys that forced her as misogynistic at all.

Every women I've known whose gotten abortion knew exactly what she was doing when she got pregnant and when she decided to end it.

When I was in the service, there was this girl who dated one of my friends. Keep in mind, this was in the bad old days when I was a right wing jerkwad with too much residual Catholicism. (I got over it.) Well, after this guy kept stringing her along about his promises to marry her, she decided to up the ante by stopping her birth control pills. When he refused to be bullied into a marriage he clearly was having second thoughts about, she got an abortion.

Why? Because she didn't want her strict Catholic, Asian parents to know she wasn't still a virgin at 22. No, really!

A year later, she got back with the same guy, knowing exactly what he was, got pregnant again, and the same result. I stopped talking to her at that point (I had stopped talking to him some time before that.)

Predictably so, you have completely dodged the point and for what it is worth? I'm not your fucking therapist. I'm not interested in your anecdotal stories.

 

[JoeB131]

You're right. I don't.

Care to explain why I should?

Maybe because you'd realize you are a useful idiot. You see, for 45 years now, the GOP has gotten you ALL SO ANGRY that women are terminating unwanted pregnancies, showing you Fetus Porn of discarded medical waste, using ridiculous holocaust analogies and inciting some of the nuttier ones of you to bomb health clinics.

And yet in 45 years, after putting 10 justices on SCOTUS, Roe still stands.

It seems to me that they don't really want to ban abortion, they just want to keep useful idiots like you angry about it.

Meanwhile, they get their tax cuts for the rich, the busting up of unions, the rolling back of environmental and labor regulations, all the stuff that had demolished the middle class so people are limiting themselves to two kids when their parents generations had up to five... even the Catholics.

LoL.

Great.

The next time I read an article abouta man who killed a woman because she wouldn't abort or forced her to have one... I'll just remember what you said and I won't see the guys that forced her as misogynistic at all.

Do you get as upset about the guy who kills his girlfriend for having an abortion.

Predictably so, you have completely dodged the point and for what it is worth? I'm not your fucking therapist. I'm not interested in your anecdotal stories.

Uh, guy, every abortion has a "story", that's the point. Every woman who has an abortion has a reason for doing so... The problem with your sort is you think that you can somehow turn women into involuntary breeding machines, and they'll be okay with it..

They won't.

Just as many abortions happened before Roe as after it.. and they'll keep going on in the unlikely event Roe is overturned..

Some states will keep it legal, some states, OB/GYN's will keep performing them. Probably easier now than it was in 1973 because you have morning after pills and such.

 

[JoeMoma]

I am a pro-lifer, and I believe Roe vs, Wade was a bad/incorrect decision by the Supreme Court.

That being said, The Supreme Court gets final say on whether something is constitutional or not. Like it or not, The Supreme Court has spoken. Abortion is constitutional in the eyes of the law.

So unless the ruling is overridden by a constitutional amendment or a future Supreme Court overturns the previous ruling, abortion remains constitutional.

 

[Chuz Life]

I am a pro-lifer, and I believe Roe vs, Wade was a bad/incorrect decision by the Supreme Court.

That being said, The Supreme Court gets final say on whether something is constitutional or not. Like it or not, The Supreme Court has spoken. Abortion is constitutional in the eyes of the law.

So unless the ruling is overridden by a constitutional amendment or a future Supreme Court overturns the previous ruling, abortion remains constitutional.

Understood.

This debate is about what the arguments are for why the SCOTUS should reconsider their decision on Roe and other cases.

 

[JoeMoma]

I am a pro-lifer, and I believe Roe vs, Wade was a bad/incorrect decision by the Supreme Court.

That being said, The Supreme Court gets final say on whether something is constitutional or not. Like it or not, The Supreme Court has spoken. Abortion is constitutional in the eyes of the law.

So unless the ruling is overridden by a constitutional amendment or a future Supreme Court overturns the previous ruling, abortion remains constitutional.

Understood.

This debate is about what the arguments are for why the SCOTUS should reconsider their decision on Roe and other cases.

Okay, but that is not the way you framed the debate in your call out to Jones.

 

[Chuz Life]

I am a pro-lifer, and I believe Roe vs, Wade was a bad/incorrect decision by the Supreme Court.

That being said, The Supreme Court gets final say on whether something is constitutional or not. Like it or not, The Supreme Court has spoken. Abortion is constitutional in the eyes of the law.

So unless the ruling is overridden by a constitutional amendment or a future Supreme Court overturns the previous ruling, abortion remains constitutional.

Understood.

This debate is about what the arguments are for why the SCOTUS should reconsider their decision on Roe and other cases.

Okay, but that is not the way you framed the debate in your call out to Jones.

Wah?
How else did you THINK it was framed?

 

[JoeMoma]

I am a pro-lifer, and I believe Roe vs, Wade was a bad/incorrect decision by the Supreme Court.

That being said, The Supreme Court gets final say on whether something is constitutional or not. Like it or not, The Supreme Court has spoken. Abortion is constitutional in the eyes of the law.

So unless the ruling is overridden by a constitutional amendment or a future Supreme Court overturns the previous ruling, abortion remains constitutional.

Understood.

This debate is about what the arguments are for why the SCOTUS should reconsider their decision on Roe and other cases.

Okay, but that is not the way you framed the debate in your call out to Jones.

Wah?
How else did you THINK it was framed?

Like this:

I (Chuz Life) herby challenge USMB member C-Clayton_Jones to a One on One debate on the Constitutionality of elective abortion.

 

[Chuz Life]

I am a pro-lifer, and I believe Roe vs, Wade was a bad/incorrect decision by the Supreme Court.

That being said, The Supreme Court gets final say on whether something is constitutional or not. Like it or not, The Supreme Court has spoken. Abortion is constitutional in the eyes of the law.

So unless the ruling is overridden by a constitutional amendment or a future Supreme Court overturns the previous ruling, abortion remains constitutional.

Understood.

This debate is about what the arguments are for why the SCOTUS should reconsider their decision on Roe and other cases.

Okay, but that is not the way you framed the debate in your call out to Jones.

Wah?
How else did you THINK it was framed?

Like this:

I (Chuz Life) herby challenge USMB member C-Clayton_Jones to a One on One debate on the Constitutionality of elective abortion.

And from that, you could not or can not deduce that "This debate is about what the arguments are for why the SCOTUS should reconsider their decision on Roe and other cases?"

 

[JoeMoma]

I am a pro-lifer, and I believe Roe vs, Wade was a bad/incorrect decision by the Supreme Court.

That being said, The Supreme Court gets final say on whether something is constitutional or not. Like it or not, The Supreme Court has spoken. Abortion is constitutional in the eyes of the law.

So unless the ruling is overridden by a constitutional amendment or a future Supreme Court overturns the previous ruling, abortion remains constitutional.

Understood.

This debate is about what the arguments are for why the SCOTUS should reconsider their decision on Roe and other cases.

Okay, but that is not the way you framed the debate in your call out to Jones.

Wah?
How else did you THINK it was framed?

Like this:

I (Chuz Life) herby challenge USMB member C-Clayton_Jones to a One on One debate on the Constitutionality of elective abortion.

And from that, you could not or can not deduce that "This debate is about what the arguments are for why the SCOTUS should reconsider their decision on Roe and other cases?"

No I could not, especially considering that you were calling out Jones who is happy with the current ruling.

 

[Chuz Life]

>

Understood.

This debate is about what the arguments are for why the SCOTUS should reconsider their decision on Roe and other cases.

Okay, but that is not the way you framed the debate in your call out to Jones.

Wah?
How else did you THINK it was framed?

Like this:

I (Chuz Life) herby challenge USMB member C-Clayton_Jones to a One on One debate on the Constitutionality of elective abortion.

And from that, you could not or can not deduce that "This debate is about what the arguments are for why the SCOTUS should reconsider their decision on Roe and other cases?"

No I could not, especially considering that you were calling out Jones who is happy with the current ruling.

Did you conclude that I am also happy with the ruling?

If not?

That might have been your first clue as to what the debate is to be about.

This, from the OP.
"This thread is open to all to discuss the challenge, specifics, formats, the poll, etc."

I'm happy to clarify. However, I think you are likely the only one who could not deduce what the basis of my challenge is.

 

[JoeMoma]

>

Okay, but that is not the way you framed the debate in your call out to Jones.

Wah?
How else did you THINK it was framed?

Like this:

I (Chuz Life) herby challenge USMB member C-Clayton_Jones to a One on One debate on the Constitutionality of elective abortion.

And from that, you could not or can not deduce that "This debate is about what the arguments are for why the SCOTUS should reconsider their decision on Roe and other cases?"

No I could not, especially considering that you were calling out Jones who is happy with the current ruling.

Did you conclude that I am also happy with the ruling?

If not?

That might have been your first clue as to what the debate is to be about.

This, from the OP.
"This thread is open to all to discuss the challenge, specifics, formats, the poll, etc."

I'm happy to clarify. However, I think you are likely the only one who could not deduce what the basis of my challenge is.

I know you are not happy with the ruling. But like I said, you did not frame the debate the way you want me to "deduce" that you framed the debate.

 

[Chuz Life]

>

Wah?
How else did you THINK it was framed?

Like this:

I (Chuz Life) herby challenge USMB member C-Clayton_Jones to a One on One debate on the Constitutionality of elective abortion.

And from that, you could not or can not deduce that "This debate is about what the arguments are for why the SCOTUS should reconsider their decision on Roe and other cases?"

No I could not, especially considering that you were calling out Jones who is happy with the current ruling.

Did you conclude that I am also happy with the ruling?

If not?

That might have been your first clue as to what the debate is to be about.

This, from the OP.
"This thread is open to all to discuss the challenge, specifics, formats, the poll, etc."

I'm happy to clarify. However, I think you are likely the only one who could not deduce what the basis of my challenge is.

I know you are not happy with the ruling. But like I said, you did not frame the debate the way you want me to "deduce" that you framed the debate.

Again. As stated in the OP. . .

This thread was started (among other reasons) for us (myself and Jones, Promarily) to name and discuss the SPECIFICS of the debate.

It is starting to look like you are intentionally missing the obvious.

 

[JoeMoma]

>

Okay, but that is not the way you framed the debate in your call out to Jones.

Wah?
How else did you THINK it was framed?

Like this:

I (Chuz Life) herby challenge USMB member C-Clayton_Jones to a One on One debate on the Constitutionality of elective abortion.

And from that, you could not or can not deduce that "This debate is about what the arguments are for why the SCOTUS should reconsider their decision on Roe and other cases?"

No I could not, especially considering that you were calling out Jones who is happy with the current ruling.

Did you conclude that I am also happy with the ruling?

If not?

That might have been your first clue as to what the debate is to be about.

This, from the OP.
"This thread is open to all to discuss the challenge, specifics, formats, the poll, etc."

I'm happy to clarify. However, I think you are likely the only one who could not deduce what the basis of my challenge is.

The way you actually framed the debate (not the way you want people to deduced that you framed it) you left open to lose the debate in one "knock out" punch.

The supreme Court already ruled that elective abortion is constitutional. In other words, you lose.

Now you might want to consider framing the debate in a way that you might be able to win.

 

[Chuz Life]

>

Wah?
How else did you THINK it was framed?

Like this:

I (Chuz Life) herby challenge USMB member C-Clayton_Jones to a One on One debate on the Constitutionality of elective abortion.

And from that, you could not or can not deduce that "This debate is about what the arguments are for why the SCOTUS should reconsider their decision on Roe and other cases?"

No I could not, especially considering that you were calling out Jones who is happy with the current ruling.

Did you conclude that I am also happy with the ruling?

If not?

That might have been your first clue as to what the debate is to be about.

This, from the OP.
"This thread is open to all to discuss the challenge, specifics, formats, the poll, etc."

I'm happy to clarify. However, I think you are likely the only one who could not deduce what the basis of my challenge is.

The way you actually framed the debate (not the way you want people to deduced that you framed it) you left open to lose the debate in one "knock out" punch.

The supreme Court already ruled that elective abortion is constitutional. In other words, you lose.

Now you might want to consider framing the debate in a way that you might be able to win.

LoL.

So, it is your opinion that the SCOTUS is infallible, can not be challenged and can never be compelled to overturn any of their previous rulings.

Is that it?

 

[JoeMoma]

>

Like this:

And from that, you could not or can not deduce that "This debate is about what the arguments are for why the SCOTUS should reconsider their decision on Roe and other cases?"

No I could not, especially considering that you were calling out Jones who is happy with the current ruling.

Did you conclude that I am also happy with the ruling?

If not?

That might have been your first clue as to what the debate is to be about.

This, from the OP.
"This thread is open to all to discuss the challenge, specifics, formats, the poll, etc."

I'm happy to clarify. However, I think you are likely the only one who could not deduce what the basis of my challenge is.

The way you actually framed the debate (not the way you want people to deduced that you framed it) you left open to lose the debate in one "knock out" punch.

The supreme Court already ruled that elective abortion is constitutional. In other words, you lose.

Now you might want to consider framing the debate in a way that you might be able to win.

LoL.

So, it is your opinion that the SCOTUS is infallible, can not be challenged and can never be compelled to overturn any of their previous rulings.

Is that it?

Your call out was to debate the constitutionality of elective abortion. It is constitutional because the SCOTUS ruled so. Whether SCOTUS was correct or should be challenged is a different debate. That is why I was nit-picking you about the way you framed the debate to begin with.

 

[Chuz Life]

>

And from that, you could not or can not deduce that "This debate is about what the arguments are for why the SCOTUS should reconsider their decision on Roe and other cases?"

No I could not, especially considering that you were calling out Jones who is happy with the current ruling.

Did you conclude that I am also happy with the ruling?

If not?

That might have been your first clue as to what the debate is to be about.

This, from the OP.
"This thread is open to all to discuss the challenge, specifics, formats, the poll, etc."

I'm happy to clarify. However, I think you are likely the only one who could not deduce what the basis of my challenge is.

The way you actually framed the debate (not the way you want people to deduced that you framed it) you left open to lose the debate in one "knock out" punch.

The supreme Court already ruled that elective abortion is constitutional. In other words, you lose.

Now you might want to consider framing the debate in a way that you might be able to win.

LoL.

So, it is your opinion that the SCOTUS is infallible, can not be challenged and can never be compelled to overturn any of their previous rulings.

Is that it?

Your call out was to debate the constitutionality of elective abortion. It is constitutional because the SCOTUS ruled so. Whether SCOTUS was correct or should be challenged is a different debate. That is why I was nit-picking you about the way you framed the debate to begin with.

I completely disagree with and reject the (your) premise that something "IS" constitutional just because the SCOTUS ruled it so.

 

[TNHarley]

Leftists don't like structured debate.
Do you know how many of my challenges have been turned down?
A bunch

 

[JoeMoma]

>

No I could not, especially considering that you were calling out Jones who is happy with the current ruling.

Did you conclude that I am also happy with the ruling?

If not?

That might have been your first clue as to what the debate is to be about.

This, from the OP.
"This thread is open to all to discuss the challenge, specifics, formats, the poll, etc."

I'm happy to clarify. However, I think you are likely the only one who could not deduce what the basis of my challenge is.

The way you actually framed the debate (not the way you want people to deduced that you framed it) you left open to lose the debate in one "knock out" punch.

The supreme Court already ruled that elective abortion is constitutional. In other words, you lose.

Now you might want to consider framing the debate in a way that you might be able to win.

LoL.

So, it is your opinion that the SCOTUS is infallible, can not be challenged and can never be compelled to overturn any of their previous rulings.

Is that it?

Your call out was to debate the constitutionality of elective abortion. It is constitutional because the SCOTUS ruled so. Whether SCOTUS was correct or should be challenged is a different debate. That is why I was nit-picking you about the way you framed the debate to begin with.

I completely disagree with and reject the (your) premise that something "IS" constitutional just because the SCOTUS ruled it so.

You can reject it all day long, but the US Federal Government recognizes the SCOTUS as the final word on constitutionality. Perhaps someday the SCOTUS will overturn the current ruling or the ruling will be superseded by a constitutional amendment. Until then, rightly or wrongly, our government recognizes elective abortion to be constitutional because the SCOTUS has ruled so.