USA Roe, the evangelicals and the war on choice

Remove this Banner Ad

Because you're not making an argument, you're just stating that the US is the best or most influential (not the same thing), without peers, in a host of areas, without basis.

I'll give you their military, for now. Although given the amount of spending that goes into it, versus domestic programs in desperate need (including the VA), I don't think it's the win some people think it is.
Because you're not making an argument, you're just stating that the US is the best or most influential (not the same thing), without peers, in a host of areas, without basis.

I'll give you their military, for now. Although given the amount of spending that goes into it, versus domestic programs in desperate need (including the VA), I don't think it's the win some people think it is.
Be fair, Bloods86, what about Film, music ? Let's start there then work towards Unis, Harvard/Yale/MIT etc. Then we can start looking at freedom, Equality, then work up to Aspiration ? Whilst you are at it, think about google, microsoft, John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, Francis Powers, then Kissinger's Shuttle Diplomacy. Reflect upon Marshall Plan, rejuvenation of post WW11 Japan, even Nixon following Whitlam to engage CCP China. What haven't Americans achieved ? An innovative, good oriented lot, even if flawed.
 
Be fair, Bloods86, what about Film, music ? Let's start there then work towards Unis, Harvard/Yale/MIT etc. Then we can start looking at freedom, Equality, then work up to Aspiration ? Whilst you are at it, think about google, microsoft, John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, Francis Powers, then Kissinger's Shuttle Diplomacy. Reflect upon Marshall Plan, rejuvenation of post WW11 Japan, even Nixon following Whitlam to engage CCP China. What haven't Americans achieved ? An innovative, good oriented lot, even if flawed.
The US entertainment industry is massive and influential yes. It has a large local market which enabled it to then expand, similar to Bollywood. It's also got plenty of artists, actors, directors, other personnel from the UK, Canada, Australia and plenty of other places. What about Cambridge, Oxford, NUS, UBC, plus plenty of other leading unis (that maybe haven't got the marketing side down)? That's also cherrypicking at the upper tier of tertiary education that very few will experience, ignoring the overall college system, elementary and secondary school systems.

My first job out of uni was with IBM, so the US has produced some large companies, so what? I currently work for a subsidiary of a large multinational from elsewhere.

I laugh at claims the US is the leader in freedom. Sure, they can have lots of guns, but that's about where their freedom tops out (and comes at the expense of other freedoms). Incredible wealth inequality, where the economy works mostly for the richest. Their economy was built off the backs of slavery and oppression, and like many, dependent on immigration (not really self sustaining). Mass incarceration, forced labour, often for minor crimes. Freedom of expression, speech etc, good grief. They have gerrymandering and targeted voting restrictions to high heaven, the last president tried to cancel the last presidential election results, a host of state legislatures are restricting the rights and speech of women, trans, gay people, african american authors etc, they're banning books also. Unions have been hobbled.

Freedom also means the ability to live a life you want, not just a lack of regulation, to that end the country doesn't even have Medicare for all. They'll bail out banks, but not ordinary people. They're an incredibly litigious nation. They have an incredibly pro corporate over citizenry court system, including the 3 corporate stooges Trump put in place at the Supreme Court. Some of their asset seizure and forfeiture laws are insane. We could go on and on.

Australia has lots of issues too, we're not some utopia, neither are Scandinavian countries etc. But cheerleading of the US as the best in all areas is far off the mark.
 
Last edited:
Be fair, Bloods86, what about Film, music ? Let's start there then work towards Unis, Harvard/Yale/MIT etc. Then we can start looking at freedom, Equality, then work up to Aspiration ? Whilst you are at it, think about google, microsoft, John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, Francis Powers, then Kissinger's Shuttle Diplomacy. Reflect upon Marshall Plan, rejuvenation of post WW11 Japan, even Nixon following Whitlam to engage CCP China. What haven't Americans achieved ? An innovative, good oriented lot, even if flawed.

Don’t forget forced pregnancies.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

And as for the US being the world leader in music...that's hilarious. And it's highly subjective. What is inarguable though, there are more truly great bands that came out of the UK than the US. The top 5 selling bands in history are all British. The 6th is Australian. The 7th Irish and the you get to The Eagles in 8th. If you were going to argue solo artists then sure, the US has the first world covered with the likes of Elvis, Michael Jackson and plenty of others but to say the best music comes out of the US is just plain nonsense. The same could be said for film. Hollywood is not as big as Bollywood in ether the number of movies made or the volume of people who watch them.

But we really should get back to how the US leads the world in gender equality.🤣

Oh, except they don't.
 
I ran into Mehdi Hasan, many years ago, when he was still a Brit. Be careful of what Hasan says.
I don't know what you experienced but I have found him to research his material rather diligently.

Maybe it is just your bias based on your experience.
 
The poor girl did get an abortion and wasn't forced to carry it to term so what is the issue?
If this happened a few months later she would have. Children in some US states will be forced to carry their rapists' baby to term in the future. Its going to happen.

Thats probably the issue.


All going well eh Stokey?
 
Last edited:
reading that the other day legit made me want to get on a plane and go over there and start punching judges and politicians
Judges apply the law. It would be unfair to punch a judge, dangerous, too, the local cops would take a dim view of it. Her/his Honour may not even like the law but must still apply it. Politicians make the laws but the laws end up being what the electorate will tolerate It looks like you'll have to punch up the electorate, the closing 3 mil of them. Would it be better to initiate a fund to support that poor little girl ? The Cryptkeeper, Bourbons and especiallyCartwright are sure to want to contribute.
 
Judges apply the law. It would be unfair to punch a judge, dangerous, too, the local cops would take a dim view of it. Her/his Honour may not even like the law but must still apply it. Politicians make the laws but the laws end up being what the electorate will tolerate It looks like you'll have to punch up the electorate, the closing 3 mil of them. Would it be better to initiate a fund to support that poor little girl ? The Cryptkeeper, Bourbons and especiallyCartwright are sure to want to contribute.
Judges have also overturned legislation that was shit, I'm still punching them
 
Judges have also overturned legislation that was s**t, I'm still punching them
In Common Law jurisdictions, Judges only overturn laws on Constitutional grounds, even in the US and that's ultimately in the Supreme Court. Whilst there's always go-fund-me, better off starting a fund
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Judges apply the law. It would be unfair to punch a judge, dangerous, too, the local cops would take a dim view of it. Her/his Honour may not even like the law but must still apply it. Politicians make the laws but the laws end up being what the electorate will tolerate It looks like you'll have to punch up the electorate, the closing 3 mil of them. Would it be better to initiate a fund to support that poor little girl ? The Cryptkeeper, Bourbons and especiallyCartwright are sure to want to contribute.
Supreme Court judges fabricate the law out of unreasonable interpretation funded by political interests.
 
Interpretation of whatever that is supposed to even mean would cop a 4:3 split in the High Court.
Specific example - the ass pull that is the wildly permissive interpretation of the second amendment that discards the well regulated component in favor of guns guns guns
 
Judges apply the law. It would be unfair to punch a judge, dangerous, too, the local cops would take a dim view of it. Her/his Honour may not even like the law but must still apply it. Politicians make the laws but the laws end up being what the electorate will tolerate It looks like you'll have to punch up the electorate, the closing 3 mil of them. Would it be better to initiate a fund to support that poor little girl ? The Cryptkeeper, Bourbons and especiallyCartwright are sure to want to contribute.

Judges over there apply whatever "law" they think best aligns to their political beliefs, generally under duress from whatever scumbag politician got them appointed.

Why do you think RvW was overturned? I'll give you a hint, it had nothing to do with the law.
 
Judges over there apply whatever "law" they think best aligns to their political beliefs, generally under duress from whatever scumbag politician got them appointed.

Why do you think RvW was overturned? I'll give you a hint, it had nothing to do with the law.
I had EVERYTHING to do with the law. It was a decision on whether the US Constitution confers a right to abortion. It determined that what was called a fundamental right in Roe v Wade was not a Constitutional right. The issue is back where it should be, in the hands of the legislature, where it is in Australia. Read it yourself, it's available online, look up Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organisation.
 
I had EVERYTHING to do with the law. It was a decision on whether the US Constitution confers a right to abortion. It determined that what was called a fundamental right in Roe v Wade was not a Constitutional right. The issue is back where it should be, in the hands of the legislature, where it is in Australia. Read it yourself, it's available online, look up Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organisation.
Feeling good about the child in Mississippi who was attacked and had to have her baby due to these laws?
 
I had EVERYTHING to do with the law. It was a decision on whether the US Constitution confers a right to abortion. It determined that what was called a fundamental right in Roe v Wade was not a Constitutional right. The issue is back where it should be, in the hands of the legislature, where it is in Australia. Read it yourself, it's available online, look up Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organisation.
Healthcare is basic human right, an abortion is healthcare.
 
Judges apply the law. It would be unfair to punch a judge, dangerous, too, the local cops would take a dim view of it. Her/his Honour may not even like the law but must still apply it. Politicians make the laws but the laws end up being what the electorate will tolerate It looks like you'll have to punch up the electorate, the closing 3 mil of them. Would it be better to initiate a fund to support that poor little girl ? The Cryptkeeper, Bourbons and especiallyCartwright are sure to want to contribute.
Indeed I would mate, is there a GoFundMe or something? Didn't see any mention in the reporting.

But yes of course, crowd funding the 18 hour round trip/procedure and punching judges are clearly the only 2 reasonable options here, good one :drunk:
 
I had EVERYTHING to do with the law. It was a decision on whether the US Constitution confers a right to abortion. It determined that what was called a fundamental right in Roe v Wade was not a Constitutional right. The issue is back where it should be, in the hands of the legislature, where it is in Australia. Read it yourself, it's available online, look up Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organisation.
Might have been good to know that when the people responsible for the decision were directly asked about it prior to being confirmed.

sc-liars-jpg.1443269
 
I had EVERYTHING to do with the law. It was a decision on whether the US Constitution confers a right to abortion. It determined that what was called a fundamental right in Roe v Wade was not a Constitutional right. The issue is back where it should be, in the hands of the legislature, where it is in Australia. Read it yourself, it's available online, look up Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organisation.

BULLSHIT. And the Constitution is load of crap that the intellectually feeble hide behind.

The sooner grubby politicians, idiot whackjob Bible-bashing conservatives and basically everybody else left women the f*** alone to have agency over their own bodies, the better.

In short, it's time people minded their own f***ing business.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top