Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Still, I suppose every policy of every left-wing blog is my fault -- does that mean that every policy of every far-right blog is attributable to you and your more-or-less evil-twin Penske?

All of the lies proffered by Ty and TurdShifter have come from blogs.

Ergo, it's only fair to point that out.

PS- You know I have no truck in your fight with Penske, so leave me the fuck out of it, for numerous reasons. Bitch, :-)

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan

ETA: I agree with this guy over at the Cato Institute quoted in the above article:

• What do we know about John Roberts? Not much. Yes, Roberts is one of the most highly respected lawyers of his generation. He has also spent vanishingly little time on the bench. Is it too early for pundits of all stripes to take a dose of humility and admit the obvious? We have no idea what kind of a justice he will be.

It would have been a bit more time if he had received even a hearing in the Democratic controlled Senate in the early 90's, no? Ironic that the D's have less to attack since they prevented him from exposing them to his views starting 12 years ago. Good job!

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's via proposition right? Big difference between that an a rule enacted by the legislature. There would be turmoil in DC if either house proposed something to that effect.

There might be turmoil but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. There's turmoil in DC every year on the anniversary of Roe too.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You honestly have a problem with this? To me, this is nothing more than "assumption of risk".

[/QUOTE]

Hey, I'd be all for it, if they could just amend the law to state that the man who knocks the woman up has to spend nine months carrying an equally heavy weight, and has to live with the child until adulthood.

I think that'd be fair, but try selling that to the promiscuous assholes who try to fuck everything they can get drunk then run away when their seduction reaps unexpected results.

If there must be responsibility for the fucking, then that responsibility must be apportioned equaled to both parties involved in the act. Only seems fair to me...

No, paternity and child support are not enough. He's got to suck up exactly the same shit the pregnant woman has to. If we can work that through legislation, I agree with you 100%.

Lets see how far that goes on Capitol Hill.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
So you assumed the risk of a slaigow?

I think we all assume more risk knowing that we can take care of things if our risk/benefit calculations were wrong.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The Human Rights Campaign "action" email only asked for money to research his record.

There's a nice round-up of activist organization executive directors and scholars' initial impression of the nomination over at Salon.com.

ETA: I agree with this guy over at the Cato Institute quoted in the above article:

• What do we know about John Roberts? Not much. Yes, Roberts is one of the most highly respected lawyers of his generation. He has also spent vanishingly little time on the bench. Is it too early for pundits of all stripes to take a dose of humility and admit the obvious? We have no idea what kind of a justice he will be.

I think the Dems should just wave this one through. We should be thankful it wasn't Brown or Coulter or somebody. The R's on the Gang of 14 will never buy this one as an extraordinary circumstance, so Roberts will sail through. If a Dem senator tries to filibuster, the right will shriek and howl about how unreasonable they are, and I personally wouldn't disagree. Let's get back to discussing what a slimebag Karl Rove is, asap.

• 

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I think the Dems should just wave this one through. We should be thankful it wasn't Brown or Coulter or somebody. The R's on the Gang of 14 will never buy this one as an extraordinary circumstance, so Roberts will sail through. If a Dem senator tries to filibuster, the right will shriek and howl about how unreasonable they are, and I personally wouldn't disagree. Let's get back to discussing what a slimebag Karl Rove is, asap.

• 

I'm on board with that. Should we send out the highly coordinated e-mails to our bretheren and sistren on the left and have them all retreat in an orderly manner?

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield

Hey, I'd be all for it, if they could just amend the law to state that the man who knocks the woman up has to spend nine months carrying an equally heavy weight, and has to live with the child until adulthood.

I think that'd be fair, but try selling that to the promiscuous assholes who try to fuck everything they can get drunk then run away when their seduction reaps unexpected results.

If there must be responsibility for the fucking, then that responsibility must be apportioned equaled to both parties involved in the act. Only seems fair to me...

No, paternity and child support are not enough. He's got to suck up exactly the same shit the pregnant woman has to. If we can work that through legislation, I agree with you 100%.

Lets see how far that goes on Capitol Hill.

You have a problem with the "opt-out" right?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
There might be turmoil but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. There's turmoil in DC every year on the anniversary of Roe too.

My guess is that you are wrong, but we'll never know because it will never happen, mostly because of the turmoil.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I agree with what most everything Slave said last night. I am 100% pro-personal responsibility. Unless we decide as a society that we all get do overs for the negative consequences of our behaviors then I don't conception requires a special dispensation. Further, I believe that the unborn child has the same rights a born child much earlier than current law accounts for..

You're missing a large part of the problem: how to deal with the unwanted child. It's great to say personal responsibility when the result if a fried brain or an ugly tattoo. But pregnancy results in more than that.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's via proposition right? Big difference between that an a rule enacted by the legislature. There would be turmoil in DC if either house proposed something to that effect.

Uh, the Senate has and has had rules requiring supermajorities to raise taxes, raise spending, raise spending without raising taxes, at various points. So, where's the turmoil?

Also, the Cal. legislature's rule is irrelevant to the U.S. constitutional discussion. Unless you're saying it violates the guarantee clause, and it makes Cal's gov't non-republican.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You're missing a large part of the problem: how to deal with the unwanted child. It's great to say personal responsibility when the result if a fried brain or an ugly tattoo. But pregnancy results in more than that.

Every child a wanted child. I feel strongly about this.

Oh, and they did a study on kids who are now 8 who were born very prematurely (like 29 weeks, I think -- it's on Yahoo or CNN or NYT today) and something like 79% had some kind of developmental disorder/disability. Just wanted to throw that into the mix of magical trimesters, because 29 weeks is just over the edge into the *third* trimester, I think.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

You have a problem with the "opt-out" right? [/QUOTE]

Opt out? I'm sorry. I don't understand.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Every child a wanted child. I feel strongly about this.

Oh, and they did a study on kids who are now 8 who were born very prematurely (like 29 weeks, I think -- it's on Yahoo or CNN or NYT today) and something like 79% had some kind of developmental disorder/disability. Just wanted to throw that into the mix of magical trimesters, because 29 weeks is just over the edge into the *third* trimester, I think.

You do realize you're offering a new Gordian Knot here. I've avoided the "when is it ok to abort due to birth defect" area because I think this one will really rub some nerves raw.

That said, when my wife has a kid, we're getting every test they can give to make sure its ok. If its not, even if we have to go to Switzerland, that kid ain't getting born.

Boy am I lucky to not be poor in a GOP revolution...

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Opt out? I'm sorry. I don't understand.

It's a wonderful "works great in theory, sorta" thing he and DS blather on about. And possibly Less. Something about the guy contractually opting out of responsibility for any child that results from sex he has.

I look forward to this discussion.

ETA I think a guy and I have a tacit understanding that if he doesn't yap about politics, I won't explicitly say that if I ever got pregnant, I would absolutely not have the kid. It's a much more satisfactory relationship.