1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A gross misrepresentation of the leftwing views on inner city schooling.

How is it a misrepresentation? 

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Have another go and think about funding (for schools, not tax cuts for the hyper wealthy).

You think the issue is not enough money? Who runs the big cities and virtually all the schools in the US? 

 

9 hours ago, Lorenzo Valla said:

The fact that you don't understand the difference between a law passed by Congress and signed by President, and a judicial opinion is fairly startling.  Yes, it was correct that a previous SCOTUS opinion supported the right to an abortion.  Judicial opinions are not laws and they can, and often are, overturned.  As this one, unfortunately was.

 

If in the last 50 years a Congress passed a law protecting a woman's ability to get an abortion, it would take precedence over all over states' restrictions and no one would be trying to place 9 judges' opinions over the will of the people.

A legal opinion can always be rejected by a court but it's a pretty sad day when a justice provides that opinion to the senate and then rules the opposite way. A best it means the opinion was incompetent and at worst that the justice was lying when he gave that opinion. 

Edited March 11, 20233 yr by ozimoron

On 3/9/2023 at 5:56 PM, Yellowtail said:

To view the article I would have to give the leftists at the Times money, which they would use to have more leftists generate more leftist propaganda. 

 

In any evert, even if what you say is true, Americans still have access to free abortions in states that promote them.

 

Any excuse to prolong your willful avoidance of facts.

 

No States ‘promote abortions’.

 

Not that such a fact will get through.

 

 

Edited March 12, 20233 yr by Chomper Higgot

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Any excuse to prolong your willful avoidance of facts.

 

No States ‘promote abortions’.

 

Not that such a fact will get through.

 

 

When the governor of a state goes on national televisions and offers free abortions and free travel for out-of-state women that want abortions, is it not promoting? 

 

When the Social Security advertises free wellness check-ups and flu-shots, are they not promoting them? 

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

When the governor of a state goes on national televisions and offers free abortions and free travel for out-of-state women that want abortions, is it not promoting? 

 

When the Social Security advertises free wellness check-ups and flu-shots, are they not promoting them? 

No, health care should be free, paid for by taxes. 

Edited March 12, 20233 yr by ozimoron

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

When the governor of a state goes on national televisions and offers free abortions and free travel for out-of-state women that want abortions, is it not promoting? 

 

When the Social Security advertises free wellness check-ups and flu-shots, are they not promoting them? 

no, they are not promoting abortions, they are offering the service to women who need it.

 

You yourself have argued Abortions are available in some states in the US.

 

Defenders of States that ban abortions frequently state women who need an abortion can travel to where they are available.

 

It is the banning of abortions in some states that makes it necessarily other states to open their services to women from states where abortions are banned.

 

Now back to the fact that a number of states ban all including in cases of rape or incest.

 

Inevitable result, girls raped by their fathers, brothers, uncles, step fathers being made to go full term.

 

Go ahead defend that obscenity.

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

no, they are not promoting abortions, they are offering the service to women who need it.

So when I see a commercial on television offering something free, it is not a promotion, but a service. Got it. 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You yourself have argued Abortions are available in some states in the US.

In all states as far as I am aware. 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Defenders of States that ban abortions frequently state women who need an abortion can travel to where they are available.

Is it not true? In any event, I'm not defending states that ban abortions, I do not think abortion should be banned. 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It is the banning of abortions in some states that makes it necessarily other states to open their services to women from states where abortions are banned.

So women in the states you claim have banned abortions still have access to abortions, correct? 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Now back to the fact that a number of states ban all including in cases of rape or incest.

As long as that "number" is zero, it may be a fact. I do not know of any state that has a 100% ban on abortions. 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Inevitable result, girls raped by their fathers, brothers, uncles, step fathers being made to go full term.

No doubt there are huge numbers of these pregnancies, but they are still offered free abortions and transportation to the states that promote abortions. 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Go ahead defend that obscenity.

Again, I am not anti-abortion, and I would support federal legislation that made abortion in cases of rape and incest legal. Why is legislation like this being pushed through? We heard a lot about it before the election. Now? Not so much. 

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So when I see a commercial on television offering something free, it is not a promotion, but a service. Got it. 

It's called public information and awareness. 

 

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

In all states as far as I am aware. 

 

Is it not true? In any event, I'm not defending states that ban abortions, I do not think abortion should be banned. 

 

So women in the states you claim have banned abortions still have access to abortions, correct? 

no, far from correct. Now the religious zealots and wingnuts are criminalising anything to do with abortion.

 

 

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

As long as that "number" is zero, it may be a fact. I do not know of any state that has a 100% ban on abortions. 

They don't, that's not the issue. It doesn't make it OK when they only allow abortions in the most extreme cases where the mothers life is threatened.

 

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

No doubt there are huge numbers of these pregnancies, but they are still offered free abortions and transportation to the states that promote abortions. 

Even that is being criminalised.

 

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Again, I am not anti-abortion, and I would support federal legislation that made abortion in cases of rape and incest legal. Why is legislation like this being pushed through? We heard a lot about it before the election. Now? Not so much. 

It should be entirely up to the mother in the first two trimesters at least. It's her body. The religious idiots should be doing more to save babies which have already been born. This argument is pure religion and nothing else. They're only interested in trying to protect the birth rate of their own ilk. Black babies in Africa, not so much.

Edited March 12, 20233 yr by ozimoron

On 3/9/2023 at 5:42 PM, Bkk Brian said:

Self explanatory, its used that way by the anti woke who love to throw out their childish name calling. However that's fine by me, proud to be #woke

 

“wokeness” encompasses being informed, educated on, and aware of social injustices.

 

 

Probably good to define " social injustices" don't you agree?  Many definitions of this. 

4 minutes ago, alex8912 said:

Probably good to define " social injustices" don't you agree?  Many definitions of this. 

My quote was from the Ipsos Poll and the respondents, feel free to contact them with definitions

An off-topic, baiting, troll post has been removed.

On 3/9/2023 at 10:52 AM, Yellowtail said:

Examples ? 

Desire to cut SSA and Medicare, for starters.

Reported troll post and replies removed

On 3/11/2023 at 7:13 PM, Lorenzo Valla said:

The fact that you don't understand the difference between a law passed by Congress and signed by President, and a judicial opinion is fairly startling.  Yes, it was correct that a previous SCOTUS opinion supported the right to an abortion.  Judicial opinions are not laws and they can, and often are, overturned.  As this one, unfortunately was.

 

If in the last 50 years a Congress passed a law protecting a woman's ability to get an abortion, it would take precedence over all over states' restrictions and no one would be trying to place 9 judges' opinions over the will of the people.

How did a thread about woke morph into a discussion on abortion?

IMO two completely different subjects.

Conservatives struggle to define "Woke" in any consistent and coherent way.

 

The best definition I've heard so far is that "Whatever I don't like is Woke." Which of course exposes the idiocy of such a concept.

 

A viral moment reinforces the hollowness of ‘woke’ as an attack

 

One of conservative writer Bethany Mandel’s least disputable comments during her appearance on the Hill’s streaming show “Rising” was a prediction she made as she fumbled a reply to host Briahna Joy Gray: “This is going to be one of those moments that goes viral.”

 

Mandel had been asked a seemingly simple question by Gray. She was on the show to promote a book she wrote with another conservative writer, Karol Markowicz, a book that purports to demonstrate how “radicals” are “indoctrinating” young people in America. Mandel began the interview by asserting that there is “sort of a woke reimagining of our society” that is “happening in a lot of different ways” — spurring Gray to eventually ask her what she meant by the term “woke.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/15/woke-liberals-desantis/

 

 

2 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

Conservatives struggle to define "Woke" in any consistent and coherent way.

 

The best definition I've heard so far is that "Whatever I don't like is Woke." Which of course exposes the idiocy of such a concept.

 

 

Who was it who said that ?

Who are you quoting ?

2 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Who was it who said that ?

Who are you quoting ?

Scare quotes (also called shudder quotes,[1][2] sneer quotes,[3] and quibble marks) are quotation marks that writers place around a word or phrase to signal that they are using it in an ironic, referential, or otherwise non-standard sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

14 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Scare quotes (also called shudder quotes,[1][2] sneer quotes,[3] and quibble marks) are quotation marks that writers place around a word or phrase to signal that they are using it in an ironic, referential, or otherwise non-standard sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

So it wasn't a quote be anyone, it was a made up quote .

Fake quote

2 hours ago, bamnutsak said:

Conservatives struggle to define "Woke" in any consistent and coherent way.

 

The best definition I've heard so far is that "Whatever I don't like is Woke." Which of course exposes the idiocy of such a concept.

 

A viral moment reinforces the hollowness of ‘woke’ as an attack

 

One of conservative writer Bethany Mandel’s least disputable comments during her appearance on the Hill’s streaming show “Rising” was a prediction she made as she fumbled a reply to host Briahna Joy Gray: “This is going to be one of those moments that goes viral.”

 

Mandel had been asked a seemingly simple question by Gray. She was on the show to promote a book she wrote with another conservative writer, Karol Markowicz, a book that purports to demonstrate how “radicals” are “indoctrinating” young people in America. Mandel began the interview by asserting that there is “sort of a woke reimagining of our society” that is “happening in a lot of different ways” — spurring Gray to eventually ask her what she meant by the term “woke.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/15/woke-liberals-desantis/

 

 

And to think she wrote the book and couldn't explain what woke was. I watch this interview and she made herself look a fool 

37 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

So it wasn't a quote be anyone, it was a made up quote .

Fake quote

Did you even bother to look up scare quotes?. Believe it or not that's a thing. They're not used to mean you're quoting some specific person but rather in reference to some special word or phrase. What's so hard to understand about that?

The only person I could imagine could possible take offense at that would be the person who was being replied to. And since that person is no-one then no one should definitely be offended.

3 hours ago, bamnutsak said:

Conservatives struggle to define "Woke" in any consistent and coherent way.

 

The best definition I've heard so far is that "Whatever I don't like is Woke." Which of course exposes the idiocy of such a concept.

 

Aal moment reinforces the hollowness of ‘woke’ as an attack

 

One of conservative writer Bethany Mandel’s least disputable comments during her appearance on the Hill’s streaming show “Rising” was a prediction she made as she fumbled a reply to host Briahna Joy Gray: “This is going to be one of those moments that goes viral.”

 

Mandel had been asked a seemingly simple question by Gray. She was on the show to promote a book she wrote with another conservative writer, Karol Markowicz, a book that purports to demonstrate how “radicals” are “indoctrinating” young people in America. Mandel began the interview by asserting that there is “sort of a woke reimagining of our society” that is “happening in a lot of different ways” — spurring Gray to eventually ask her what she meant by the term “woke.”

 

<link snipped as it was misbehaving and seen already>

 

 

It's an interesting point.  I wonder if any posters here are able to define woke in the way we see it used by the political right.  Their representatives certainly don't.

31 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Did you even bother to look up scare quotes?. Believe it or not that's a thing. They're not used to mean you're quoting some specific person but rather in reference to some special word or phrase. What's so hard to understand about that?

The only person I could imagine could possible take offense at that would be the person who was being replied to. And since that person is no-one then no one should definitely be offended.

Yes, I am just stating that it wasn't an actual quote and a made up quote .

   The quotation  marks weren't used to quote anyone .

Nothing is hard to understand and no one has taken offence at anything .

  I am actually rather humoured , a person made a quote up and labelled the people who said it as being idiots .

   Like making a quote up and then  being critical of the person you (didnt) quoted ????

58 minutes ago, Slip said:

It's an interesting point.  I wonder if any posters here are able to define woke in the way we see it used by the political right.  Their representatives certainly don't.

I consider myself a centrist, and to me, woke is just another word for Left.  

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I consider myself a centrist, and to me, woke is just another word for Left.  

Given your record in this forum, it's clear you have a very elastic notion of what centrist means.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I consider myself a centrist, and to me, woke is just another word for Left.  

Then why not just use the word "left" instead of a word which means something "to you" but doesn't fit any dictionary definition?

The right-wing's propaganda apparatus is quite familiar with how to get the rank and file riled up.  They are actually quite good at it.

Recall people making statements like "I don't know much about Obamacare, but I know I hate it."  The same person could say "hey, I like this Affordable Care Act, they should go with that and get rid of Obamacare." 

And then there is the distraction aspect: the GOP voters are caught in this woke stuff and LGBT threats against their children etc, meanwhile their own GOP politicians are busy taking away and dismantling what they have, even their ability to vote. 

Welcome to the conservative movement!  The less you know the happier you will be.

 

 

8 hours ago, bamnutsak said:

Conservatives struggle to define "Woke" in any consistent and coherent way.

[ . . . ]

One of conservative writer Bethany Mandel’s least disputable comments during her appearance on the Hill’s streaming show “Rising” was a prediction she made as she fumbled a reply to host Briahna Joy Gray

[ . . . ]

The folly here is she didn't prepare an answer for what she should have anticipated as a legit question.

 

11 hours ago, bamnutsak said:

The best definition I've heard so far is that "Whatever I don't like is Woke." Which of course exposes the idiocy of such a concept.

The advantage of using "woke" to mock the left is that most understand what it is referring to without having to use a lot of words.

They can't define it but they know what they hate and they hate an awful lot. 

 

 

How about if repubs wake up and worry about important issues in America and get their noses out of everyone's choice of vocabulary, out of women's vaginas, out of school curriculum, out of banning books and all the other stuff they spend time and energy to divide America.