Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Texas & Abortions

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:10:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't know a lot about federal law or how states are compelled to obey it, but I do know that Roe v. Wade made abortion available for all women in the country insofar as the developing fetus is not viable. So can someone explain to me from where the Texas legislature finds the authority to undermine this established right, if not attempt to abolish it in its entirety? Is this not a flat out illegal and affrontative challenge to the authority of the Supreme Court?

Why should Wendy Davis even have to filibuster this anti-abortion bill? Why can't someone just sue the state of Texas if the bill passes? What am I missing?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:16:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:10:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't know a lot about federal law or how states are compelled to obey it, but I do know that Roe v. Wade made abortion available for all women in the country insofar as the developing fetus is not viable. So can someone explain to me from where the Texas legislature finds the authority to undermine this established right, if not attempt to abolish it in its entirety? Is this not a flat out illegal and affrontative challenge to the authority of the Supreme Court?

Why should Wendy Davis even have to filibuster this anti-abortion bill? Why can't someone just sue the state of Texas if the bill passes? What am I missing?

The difference:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:17:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:10:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't know a lot about federal law or how states are compelled to obey it, but I do know that Roe v. Wade made abortion available for all women in the country insofar as the developing fetus is not viable.

Actually Roe used the trimester framework to evaluate the legality of abortion, weighing the mother's right to privacy with the state's interest in preserving life. It was not until Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey (in the 1990s) that viability replaced the trimester framework.

So can someone explain to me from where the Texas legislature finds the authority to undermine this established right, if not attempt to abolish it in its entirety?

Laws passed by state legislatures are presumed constitutional until someone issues a legal challenge to the law, by finding a plaintiff (who must have suffered some injury the court can adjudicate). While I (and I think every other person who has even a marginal understanding of supreme court jurisprudence and con law) agree that based on Roe and Casey, the Texas law in question is unconstitutional -it has to be challenged in the courts before it can be struck down.

Is this not a flat out illegal and affrontative challenge to the authority of the Supreme Court?

More or less, but this isn't the first time either. The South is notorious for defying the Supreme Court (for ex. George Wallace and Strom Thurmond).

Why should Wendy Davis even have to filibuster this anti-abortion bill?

To prevent a woman having to carry a child to term or risk breaking the law. It's very complicated and expensive to challenge laws in court, even if they are as flagrantly unconstitutional as the recent texas law is.
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:22:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:17:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:10:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't know a lot about federal law or how states are compelled to obey it, but I do know that Roe v. Wade made abortion available for all women in the country insofar as the developing fetus is not viable.

Actually Roe used the trimester framework to evaluate the legality of abortion, weighing the mother's right to privacy with the state's interest in preserving life. It was not until Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey (in the 1990s) that viability replaced the trimester framework.

So can someone explain to me from where the Texas legislature finds the authority to undermine this established right, if not attempt to abolish it in its entirety?

Laws passed by state legislatures are presumed constitutional until someone issues a legal challenge to the law, by finding a plaintiff (who must have suffered some injury the court can adjudicate). While I (and I think every other person who has even a marginal understanding of supreme court jurisprudence and con law) agree that based on Roe and Casey, the Texas law in question is unconstitutional -it has to be challenged in the courts before it can be struck down.

Is this not a flat out illegal and affrontative challenge to the authority of the Supreme Court?

More or less, but this isn't the first time either. The South is notorious for defying the Supreme Court (for ex. George Wallace and Strom Thurmond).

Why should Wendy Davis even have to filibuster this anti-abortion bill?

To prevent a woman having to carry a child to term or risk breaking the law. It's very complicated and expensive to challenge laws in court, even if they are as flagrantly unconstitutional as the recent texas law is.

This is why I really dislike the south. Wrong culture. Wrong side of history. Bad education. Rebellious against the American union. Resistant to change. Cesspool for the most authoritarian and backward brand of social conservatism. I am so hard pressed to find something positive about the region as a whole.

Of course there are many exceptions and many good people, but I'm judging very broadly here.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:27:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:22:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:17:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:10:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't know a lot about federal law or how states are compelled to obey it, but I do know that Roe v. Wade made abortion available for all women in the country insofar as the developing fetus is not viable.

Actually Roe used the trimester framework to evaluate the legality of abortion, weighing the mother's right to privacy with the state's interest in preserving life. It was not until Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey (in the 1990s) that viability replaced the trimester framework.

So can someone explain to me from where the Texas legislature finds the authority to undermine this established right, if not attempt to abolish it in its entirety?

Laws passed by state legislatures are presumed constitutional until someone issues a legal challenge to the law, by finding a plaintiff (who must have suffered some injury the court can adjudicate). While I (and I think every other person who has even a marginal understanding of supreme court jurisprudence and con law) agree that based on Roe and Casey, the Texas law in question is unconstitutional -it has to be challenged in the courts before it can be struck down.

Is this not a flat out illegal and affrontative challenge to the authority of the Supreme Court?

More or less, but this isn't the first time either. The South is notorious for defying the Supreme Court (for ex. George Wallace and Strom Thurmond).

Why should Wendy Davis even have to filibuster this anti-abortion bill?

To prevent a woman having to carry a child to term or risk breaking the law. It's very complicated and expensive to challenge laws in court, even if they are as flagrantly unconstitutional as the recent texas law is.

This is why I really dislike the south. Wrong culture. Wrong side of history. Bad education. Rebellious against the American union. Resistant to change. Cesspool for the most authoritarian and backward brand of social conservatism. I am so hard pressed to find something positive about the region as a whole.

Of course there are many exceptions and many good people, but I'm judging very broadly here.

That rant left a bad taste in my mouth.

Really bad.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:41:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:27:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:22:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:17:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:10:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't know a lot about federal law or how states are compelled to obey it, but I do know that Roe v. Wade made abortion available for all women in the country insofar as the developing fetus is not viable.

Actually Roe used the trimester framework to evaluate the legality of abortion, weighing the mother's right to privacy with the state's interest in preserving life. It was not until Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey (in the 1990s) that viability replaced the trimester framework.

So can someone explain to me from where the Texas legislature finds the authority to undermine this established right, if not attempt to abolish it in its entirety?

Laws passed by state legislatures are presumed constitutional until someone issues a legal challenge to the law, by finding a plaintiff (who must have suffered some injury the court can adjudicate). While I (and I think every other person who has even a marginal understanding of supreme court jurisprudence and con law) agree that based on Roe and Casey, the Texas law in question is unconstitutional -it has to be challenged in the courts before it can be struck down.

Is this not a flat out illegal and affrontative challenge to the authority of the Supreme Court?

More or less, but this isn't the first time either. The South is notorious for defying the Supreme Court (for ex. George Wallace and Strom Thurmond).

Why should Wendy Davis even have to filibuster this anti-abortion bill?

To prevent a woman having to carry a child to term or risk breaking the law. It's very complicated and expensive to challenge laws in court, even if they are as flagrantly unconstitutional as the recent texas law is.

This is why I really dislike the south. Wrong culture. Wrong side of history. Bad education. Rebellious against the American union. Resistant to change. Cesspool for the most authoritarian and backward brand of social conservatism. I am so hard pressed to find something positive about the region as a whole.

Of course there are many exceptions and many good people, but I'm judging very broadly here.

That rant left a bad taste in my mouth.

Really bad.

What part of it is untrue? Instead of telling me how much you disapprove. How about you show me how much it's false?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:42:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:22:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:17:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:10:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't know a lot about federal law or how states are compelled to obey it, but I do know that Roe v. Wade made abortion available for all women in the country insofar as the developing fetus is not viable.

Actually Roe used the trimester framework to evaluate the legality of abortion, weighing the mother's right to privacy with the state's interest in preserving life. It was not until Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey (in the 1990s) that viability replaced the trimester framework.

So can someone explain to me from where the Texas legislature finds the authority to undermine this established right, if not attempt to abolish it in its entirety?

Laws passed by state legislatures are presumed constitutional until someone issues a legal challenge to the law, by finding a plaintiff (who must have suffered some injury the court can adjudicate). While I (and I think every other person who has even a marginal understanding of supreme court jurisprudence and con law) agree that based on Roe and Casey, the Texas law in question is unconstitutional -it has to be challenged in the courts before it can be struck down.

Is this not a flat out illegal and affrontative challenge to the authority of the Supreme Court?

More or less, but this isn't the first time either. The South is notorious for defying the Supreme Court (for ex. George Wallace and Strom Thurmond).

Why should Wendy Davis even have to filibuster this anti-abortion bill?

To prevent a woman having to carry a child to term or risk breaking the law. It's very complicated and expensive to challenge laws in court, even if they are as flagrantly unconstitutional as the recent texas law is.

This is why I really dislike the south. Wrong culture. Wrong side of history. Bad education. Rebellious against the American union. Resistant to change. Cesspool for the most authoritarian and backward brand of social conservatism. I am so hard pressed to find something positive about the region as a whole.

Of course there are many exceptions and many good people, but I'm judging very broadly here.

As someone who lives in the South, I can say that it is not that bad.

Well, okay, MAYBE it is that bad. People get shocked if you say you're an atheist, and I have gotten into political arguments with the most irrational people.

Most of the smart people I know here are left-leaning, at least on social issues, so it's okay.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:44:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:41:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:27:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:22:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:17:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:10:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't know a lot about federal law or how states are compelled to obey it, but I do know that Roe v. Wade made abortion available for all women in the country insofar as the developing fetus is not viable.

Actually Roe used the trimester framework to evaluate the legality of abortion, weighing the mother's right to privacy with the state's interest in preserving life. It was not until Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey (in the 1990s) that viability replaced the trimester framework.

So can someone explain to me from where the Texas legislature finds the authority to undermine this established right, if not attempt to abolish it in its entirety?

Laws passed by state legislatures are presumed constitutional until someone issues a legal challenge to the law, by finding a plaintiff (who must have suffered some injury the court can adjudicate). While I (and I think every other person who has even a marginal understanding of supreme court jurisprudence and con law) agree that based on Roe and Casey, the Texas law in question is unconstitutional -it has to be challenged in the courts before it can be struck down.

Is this not a flat out illegal and affrontative challenge to the authority of the Supreme Court?

More or less, but this isn't the first time either. The South is notorious for defying the Supreme Court (for ex. George Wallace and Strom Thurmond).

Why should Wendy Davis even have to filibuster this anti-abortion bill?

To prevent a woman having to carry a child to term or risk breaking the law. It's very complicated and expensive to challenge laws in court, even if they are as flagrantly unconstitutional as the recent texas law is.

This is why I really dislike the south. Wrong culture. Wrong side of history. Bad education. Rebellious against the American union. Resistant to change. Cesspool for the most authoritarian and backward brand of social conservatism. I am so hard pressed to find something positive about the region as a whole.

Of course there are many exceptions and many good people, but I'm judging very broadly here.

That rant left a bad taste in my mouth.

Really bad.

What part of it is untrue? Instead of telling me how much you disapprove. How about you show me how much it's false?

The region has some wonderful battlefields. I really enjoyed heading down to the Battle of Louisiana. The French district down there is great. Tampa Bay was pretty fun when I went down to the Republican National Convention. I loved D.C., Williamsburg, and Yorktown.

I have relatives that live down in Arkansas.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:48:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
By the way, the first state to legalize slavery was Massachusetts.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:48:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:44:25 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:

The region has some wonderful battlefields. I really enjoyed heading down to the Battle of Louisiana. The French district down there is great. Tampa Bay was pretty fun when I went down to the Republican National Convention. I loved D.C., Williamsburg, and Yorktown.

I have relatives that live down in Arkansas.

I don't care about that. Here's a region that's so opposed to everything I stand for as a human being and of which I've learned perpetuated slavery and perpetuated segregation and defied the movements for change and CONTINUES to do so in every respect! And I have DN on my case because I'm supposed to appreciate a region no matter how unabashedly backward and horrible it is.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:49:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:44:25 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:41:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:27:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:22:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:17:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:10:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't know a lot about federal law or how states are compelled to obey it, but I do know that Roe v. Wade made abortion available for all women in the country insofar as the developing fetus is not viable.

Actually Roe used the trimester framework to evaluate the legality of abortion, weighing the mother's right to privacy with the state's interest in preserving life. It was not until Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey (in the 1990s) that viability replaced the trimester framework.

So can someone explain to me from where the Texas legislature finds the authority to undermine this established right, if not attempt to abolish it in its entirety?

Laws passed by state legislatures are presumed constitutional until someone issues a legal challenge to the law, by finding a plaintiff (who must have suffered some injury the court can adjudicate). While I (and I think every other person who has even a marginal understanding of supreme court jurisprudence and con law) agree that based on Roe and Casey, the Texas law in question is unconstitutional -it has to be challenged in the courts before it can be struck down.

Is this not a flat out illegal and affrontative challenge to the authority of the Supreme Court?

More or less, but this isn't the first time either. The South is notorious for defying the Supreme Court (for ex. George Wallace and Strom Thurmond).

Why should Wendy Davis even have to filibuster this anti-abortion bill?

To prevent a woman having to carry a child to term or risk breaking the law. It's very complicated and expensive to challenge laws in court, even if they are as flagrantly unconstitutional as the recent texas law is.

This is why I really dislike the south. Wrong culture. Wrong side of history. Bad education. Rebellious against the American union. Resistant to change. Cesspool for the most authoritarian and backward brand of social conservatism. I am so hard pressed to find something positive about the region as a whole.

Of course there are many exceptions and many good people, but I'm judging very broadly here.

That rant left a bad taste in my mouth.

Really bad.

What part of it is untrue? Instead of telling me how much you disapprove. How about you show me how much it's false?

The region has some wonderful battlefields. I really enjoyed heading down to the Battle of Louisiana. The French district down there is great. Tampa Bay was pretty fun when I went down to the Republican National Convention. I loved D.C., Williamsburg, and Yorktown.

I have relatives that live down in Arkansas.

Wonderful battlefields... From which war again?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:51:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Does it even need to be pointed out how bad of a generalization Ike is making? I figured it was obvious.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:53:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:48:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:44:25 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:

The region has some wonderful battlefields. I really enjoyed heading down to the Battle of Louisiana. The French district down there is great. Tampa Bay was pretty fun when I went down to the Republican National Convention. I loved D.C., Williamsburg, and Yorktown.

I have relatives that live down in Arkansas.

I don't care about that. Here's a region that's so opposed to everything I stand for as a human being and of which I've learned perpetuated slavery and perpetuated segregation and defied the movements for change and CONTINUES to do so in every respect! And I have DN on my case because I'm supposed to appreciate a region no matter how unabashedly backward and horrible it is.

But then why was Massachusetts the first state to legalize slavery?
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:54:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:51:36 PM, Noumena wrote:
Does it even need to be pointed out how bad of a generalization Ike is making? I figured it was obvious.

Go ahead then. I'm practically begging you to prove that the culture isn't as backward or isn't as consistently rebellious against the federal government as I've made it out to be. Go ahead. I don't want to hear about how my generalization is... bad (as if you couldn't come up with a more creative descriptor). Go ahead I want to hear your refutation.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:54:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:48:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:44:25 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:

The region has some wonderful battlefields. I really enjoyed heading down to the Battle of Louisiana. The French district down there is great. Tampa Bay was pretty fun when I went down to the Republican National Convention. I loved D.C., Williamsburg, and Yorktown.

I have relatives that live down in Arkansas.

I don't care about that. Here's a region that's so opposed to everything I stand for as a human being and of which I've learned perpetuated slavery and perpetuated segregation and defied the movements for change and CONTINUES to do so in every respect! And I have DN on my case because I'm supposed to appreciate a region no matter how unabashedly backward and horrible it is.

Are they really "backward" on the abortion issue though? "Backward" is just subjective and means resistant to social change, but as a general trend abortion is heading the direction of the Southerners opinions. http://www.gallup.com...

Ofc theres no telling if this trend will continue
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:55:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:49:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:44:25 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:41:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:27:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:22:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:17:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:10:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't know a lot about federal law or how states are compelled to obey it, but I do know that Roe v. Wade made abortion available for all women in the country insofar as the developing fetus is not viable.

Actually Roe used the trimester framework to evaluate the legality of abortion, weighing the mother's right to privacy with the state's interest in preserving life. It was not until Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey (in the 1990s) that viability replaced the trimester framework.

So can someone explain to me from where the Texas legislature finds the authority to undermine this established right, if not attempt to abolish it in its entirety?

Laws passed by state legislatures are presumed constitutional until someone issues a legal challenge to the law, by finding a plaintiff (who must have suffered some injury the court can adjudicate). While I (and I think every other person who has even a marginal understanding of supreme court jurisprudence and con law) agree that based on Roe and Casey, the Texas law in question is unconstitutional -it has to be challenged in the courts before it can be struck down.

Is this not a flat out illegal and affrontative challenge to the authority of the Supreme Court?

More or less, but this isn't the first time either. The South is notorious for defying the Supreme Court (for ex. George Wallace and Strom Thurmond).

Why should Wendy Davis even have to filibuster this anti-abortion bill?

To prevent a woman having to carry a child to term or risk breaking the law. It's very complicated and expensive to challenge laws in court, even if they are as flagrantly unconstitutional as the recent texas law is.

This is why I really dislike the south. Wrong culture. Wrong side of history. Bad education. Rebellious against the American union. Resistant to change. Cesspool for the most authoritarian and backward brand of social conservatism. I am so hard pressed to find something positive about the region as a whole.

Of course there are many exceptions and many good people, but I'm judging very broadly here.

That rant left a bad taste in my mouth.

Really bad.

What part of it is untrue? Instead of telling me how much you disapprove. How about you show me how much it's false?

The region has some wonderful battlefields. I really enjoyed heading down to the Battle of Louisiana. The French district down there is great. Tampa Bay was pretty fun when I went down to the Republican National Convention. I loved D.C., Williamsburg, and Yorktown.

I have relatives that live down in Arkansas.

Wonderful battlefields... From which war again?

Many wars, I don't know why you think there has been only one war in the south. Obviously you need some education into history:

American Revolution
War of 1812
Mexican-American War
Civil War

Not to mention the wars with the many Native Americans and small occasional rebellions from colonial times.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:55:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:53:00 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:48:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:44:25 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:

The region has some wonderful battlefields. I really enjoyed heading down to the Battle of Louisiana. The French district down there is great. Tampa Bay was pretty fun when I went down to the Republican National Convention. I loved D.C., Williamsburg, and Yorktown.

I have relatives that live down in Arkansas.

I don't care about that. Here's a region that's so opposed to everything I stand for as a human being and of which I've learned perpetuated slavery and perpetuated segregation and defied the movements for change and CONTINUES to do so in every respect! And I have DN on my case because I'm supposed to appreciate a region no matter how unabashedly backward and horrible it is.

But then why was Massachusetts the first state to legalize slavery?

Dude that would've been in the 1600s. It was also one of the first states to abolish it.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:56:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:22:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:17:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:10:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't know a lot about federal law or how states are compelled to obey it, but I do know that Roe v. Wade made abortion available for all women in the country insofar as the developing fetus is not viable.

Actually Roe used the trimester framework to evaluate the legality of abortion, weighing the mother's right to privacy with the state's interest in preserving life. It was not until Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey (in the 1990s) that viability replaced the trimester framework.

So can someone explain to me from where the Texas legislature finds the authority to undermine this established right, if not attempt to abolish it in its entirety?

Laws passed by state legislatures are presumed constitutional until someone issues a legal challenge to the law, by finding a plaintiff (who must have suffered some injury the court can adjudicate). While I (and I think every other person who has even a marginal understanding of supreme court jurisprudence and con law) agree that based on Roe and Casey, the Texas law in question is unconstitutional -it has to be challenged in the courts before it can be struck down.

Is this not a flat out illegal and affrontative challenge to the authority of the Supreme Court?

More or less, but this isn't the first time either. The South is notorious for defying the Supreme Court (for ex. George Wallace and Strom Thurmond).

Why should Wendy Davis even have to filibuster this anti-abortion bill?

To prevent a woman having to carry a child to term or risk breaking the law. It's very complicated and expensive to challenge laws in court, even if they are as flagrantly unconstitutional as the recent texas law is.

This is why I really dislike the south. Wrong culture. Wrong side of history. Bad education. Rebellious against the American union. Resistant to change. Cesspool for the most authoritarian and backward brand of social conservatism. I am so hard pressed to find something positive about the region as a whole.

Of course there are many exceptions and many good people, but I'm judging very broadly here.

There are some really exceptional places in the South. For example, Arlington, VA, Charlotte, NC, Atlanta, GA, Savannah, GA, Dallas, Texas (to list a few) are beautifully vibrant, progressive cities. The whole south is not problematic, but it is the last place to jump on the social bandwagon -and it usually does with great resistance. Fortunately, the South grows less and less resistant to change as time goes on (although the real change won't come until the baby boomers die off or get so old that they can't get to the polls).
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:57:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:53:00 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:48:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:44:25 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:

The region has some wonderful battlefields. I really enjoyed heading down to the Battle of Louisiana. The French district down there is great. Tampa Bay was pretty fun when I went down to the Republican National Convention. I loved D.C., Williamsburg, and Yorktown.

I have relatives that live down in Arkansas.

I don't care about that. Here's a region that's so opposed to everything I stand for as a human being and of which I've learned perpetuated slavery and perpetuated segregation and defied the movements for change and CONTINUES to do so in every respect! And I have DN on my case because I'm supposed to appreciate a region no matter how unabashedly backward and horrible it is.

But then why was Massachusetts the first state to legalize slavery?

Colony you mean. And I think you know that this rebuke doesn't quite work because 17th century colonial America does not have the same cultural fractures as modern America. And just so you know, Massachusetts was among the first states to illegalize slavery, by the time this sectionalism set in.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:57:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:54:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:51:36 PM, Noumena wrote:
Does it even need to be pointed out how bad of a generalization Ike is making? I figured it was obvious.

Go ahead then. I'm practically begging you to prove that the culture isn't as backward or isn't as consistently rebellious against the federal government as I've made it out to be. Go ahead. I don't want to hear about how my generalization is... bad (as if you couldn't come up with a more creative descriptor). Go ahead I want to hear your refutation.

There's nothing to refute. You generalized. End of story. I can show points of Southern culture that don't go against whatever it is yer accusing it of (I noticed equivocation of social conservatism with distrust of centralized Federal power but that's another issue entirely) but that wouldn't matter because yer speaking on the whole. I'm not even sure how I can explain it better if you don't already get it.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:58:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:55:34 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:49:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:44:25 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:41:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:27:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:22:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:17:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:10:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't know a lot about federal law or how states are compelled to obey it, but I do know that Roe v. Wade made abortion available for all women in the country insofar as the developing fetus is not viable.

Actually Roe used the trimester framework to evaluate the legality of abortion, weighing the mother's right to privacy with the state's interest in preserving life. It was not until Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey (in the 1990s) that viability replaced the trimester framework.

So can someone explain to me from where the Texas legislature finds the authority to undermine this established right, if not attempt to abolish it in its entirety?

Laws passed by state legislatures are presumed constitutional until someone issues a legal challenge to the law, by finding a plaintiff (who must have suffered some injury the court can adjudicate). While I (and I think every other person who has even a marginal understanding of supreme court jurisprudence and con law) agree that based on Roe and Casey, the Texas law in question is unconstitutional -it has to be challenged in the courts before it can be struck down.

Is this not a flat out illegal and affrontative challenge to the authority of the Supreme Court?

More or less, but this isn't the first time either. The South is notorious for defying the Supreme Court (for ex. George Wallace and Strom Thurmond).

Why should Wendy Davis even have to filibuster this anti-abortion bill?

To prevent a woman having to carry a child to term or risk breaking the law. It's very complicated and expensive to challenge laws in court, even if they are as flagrantly unconstitutional as the recent texas law is.

This is why I really dislike the south. Wrong culture. Wrong side of history. Bad education. Rebellious against the American union. Resistant to change. Cesspool for the most authoritarian and backward brand of social conservatism. I am so hard pressed to find something positive about the region as a whole.

Of course there are many exceptions and many good people, but I'm judging very broadly here.

That rant left a bad taste in my mouth.

Really bad.

What part of it is untrue? Instead of telling me how much you disapprove. How about you show me how much it's false?

The region has some wonderful battlefields. I really enjoyed heading down to the Battle of Louisiana. The French district down there is great. Tampa Bay was pretty fun when I went down to the Republican National Convention. I loved D.C., Williamsburg, and Yorktown.

I have relatives that live down in Arkansas.

Wonderful battlefields... From which war again?

Many wars, I don't know why you think there has been only one war in the south. Obviously you need some education into history:

American Revolution
War of 1812
Mexican-American War
Civil War

Not to mention the wars with the many Native Americans and small occasional rebellions from colonial times.

I was trying to get you to mention the Civil War. I meant "wars."
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:58:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:54:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:51:36 PM, Noumena wrote:
Does it even need to be pointed out how bad of a generalization Ike is making? I figured it was obvious.

Go ahead then. I'm practically begging you to prove that the culture isn't as backward or isn't as consistently rebellious against the federal government as I've made it out to be. Go ahead. I don't want to hear about how my generalization is... bad (as if you couldn't come up with a more creative descriptor). Go ahead I want to hear your refutation.

Thett's poll shows more people are pro-life. Its not you against the region, its you against the country.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 10:00:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:58:22 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:54:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:51:36 PM, Noumena wrote:
Does it even need to be pointed out how bad of a generalization Ike is making? I figured it was obvious.

Go ahead then. I'm practically begging you to prove that the culture isn't as backward or isn't as consistently rebellious against the federal government as I've made it out to be. Go ahead. I don't want to hear about how my generalization is... bad (as if you couldn't come up with a more creative descriptor). Go ahead I want to hear your refutation.

Thett's poll shows more people are pro-life. Its not you against the region, its you against the country.

Well not really. It seems like just more people are calling themselves pro life instead of pro choice, because the numbers for actual policy are remaining pretty consistent. http://www.gallup.com...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 10:01:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:57:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:53:00 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:48:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:44:25 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:

The region has some wonderful battlefields. I really enjoyed heading down to the Battle of Louisiana. The French district down there is great. Tampa Bay was pretty fun when I went down to the Republican National Convention. I loved D.C., Williamsburg, and Yorktown.

I have relatives that live down in Arkansas.

I don't care about that. Here's a region that's so opposed to everything I stand for as a human being and of which I've learned perpetuated slavery and perpetuated segregation and defied the movements for change and CONTINUES to do so in every respect! And I have DN on my case because I'm supposed to appreciate a region no matter how unabashedly backward and horrible it is.

But then why was Massachusetts the first state to legalize slavery?

Colony you mean. And I think you know that this rebuke doesn't quite work because 17th century colonial America does not have the same cultural fractures as modern America. And just so you know, Massachusetts was among the first states to illegalize slavery, by the time this sectionalism set in.

Doesn't make a difference if it was a colony or a state, they were still the first to legalize it. In fact, even then Massachusetts can widely be considered a very racist state. Many people were against the war even when it started. Not to mention the major assaults on Irish and German immigrants by New Englanders.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 10:02:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 10:00:28 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:58:22 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:54:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:51:36 PM, Noumena wrote:
Does it even need to be pointed out how bad of a generalization Ike is making? I figured it was obvious.

Go ahead then. I'm practically begging you to prove that the culture isn't as backward or isn't as consistently rebellious against the federal government as I've made it out to be. Go ahead. I don't want to hear about how my generalization is... bad (as if you couldn't come up with a more creative descriptor). Go ahead I want to hear your refutation.

Thett's poll shows more people are pro-life. Its not you against the region, its you against the country.

Well not really. It seems like just more people are calling themselves pro life instead of pro choice, because the numbers for actual policy are remaining pretty consistent. http://www.gallup.com...

There still not allowing full abortions.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 10:02:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 10:01:05 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:57:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:53:00 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:48:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:44:25 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:

The region has some wonderful battlefields. I really enjoyed heading down to the Battle of Louisiana. The French district down there is great. Tampa Bay was pretty fun when I went down to the Republican National Convention. I loved D.C., Williamsburg, and Yorktown.

I have relatives that live down in Arkansas.

I don't care about that. Here's a region that's so opposed to everything I stand for as a human being and of which I've learned perpetuated slavery and perpetuated segregation and defied the movements for change and CONTINUES to do so in every respect! And I have DN on my case because I'm supposed to appreciate a region no matter how unabashedly backward and horrible it is.

But then why was Massachusetts the first state to legalize slavery?

Colony you mean. And I think you know that this rebuke doesn't quite work because 17th century colonial America does not have the same cultural fractures as modern America. And just so you know, Massachusetts was among the first states to illegalize slavery, by the time this sectionalism set in.

Doesn't make a difference if it was a colony or a state, they were still the first to legalize it. In fact, even then Massachusetts can widely be considered a very racist state. Many people were against the war even when it started. Not to mention the major assaults on Irish and German immigrants by New Englanders.

Dude judging a region by something that happened centuries ago isn't the same as judging it by what it is doing currently
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 10:03:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:57:35 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:54:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:51:36 PM, Noumena wrote:
Does it even need to be pointed out how bad of a generalization Ike is making? I figured it was obvious.

Go ahead then. I'm practically begging you to prove that the culture isn't as backward or isn't as consistently rebellious against the federal government as I've made it out to be. Go ahead. I don't want to hear about how my generalization is... bad (as if you couldn't come up with a more creative descriptor). Go ahead I want to hear your refutation.

There's nothing to refute. You generalized. End of story. I can show points of Southern culture that don't go against whatever it is yer accusing it of (I noticed equivocation of social conservatism with distrust of centralized Federal power but that's another issue entirely) but that wouldn't matter because yer speaking on the whole. I'm not even sure how I can explain it better if you don't already get it.

He said in that post that he was generalizing, though.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 10:04:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:57:35 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:54:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:51:36 PM, Noumena wrote:
Does it even need to be pointed out how bad of a generalization Ike is making? I figured it was obvious.

Go ahead then. I'm practically begging you to prove that the culture isn't as backward or isn't as consistently rebellious against the federal government as I've made it out to be. Go ahead. I don't want to hear about how my generalization is... bad (as if you couldn't come up with a more creative descriptor). Go ahead I want to hear your refutation.

There's nothing to refute. You generalized. End of story. I can show points of Southern culture that don't go against whatever it is yer accusing it of (I noticed equivocation of social conservatism with distrust of centralized Federal power but that's another issue entirely) but that wouldn't matter because yer speaking on the whole. I'm not even sure how I can explain it better if you don't already get it.

I didn't make that equivocation. You just inserted some ridiculous assumptions about what you thought I meant by social conservatism. Social conservatism includes bans on marriage equality, attacks on abortion rights, and the pure hegemony Christianity has on southern society. And frankly I could easily lend you the same dismissive attitude. You've posted no response to argument made, so I might as well ignore what you have to say.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 10:05:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 10:02:20 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/1/2013 10:00:28 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:58:22 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:54:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:51:36 PM, Noumena wrote:
Does it even need to be pointed out how bad of a generalization Ike is making? I figured it was obvious.

Go ahead then. I'm practically begging you to prove that the culture isn't as backward or isn't as consistently rebellious against the federal government as I've made it out to be. Go ahead. I don't want to hear about how my generalization is... bad (as if you couldn't come up with a more creative descriptor). Go ahead I want to hear your refutation.

Thett's poll shows more people are pro-life. Its not you against the region, its you against the country.

Well not really. It seems like just more people are calling themselves pro life instead of pro choice, because the numbers for actual policy are remaining pretty consistent. http://www.gallup.com...

There still not allowing full abortions.

And never have been...hence how I was wrong about social change assuming this poll is to be relied upon.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 10:06:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In fact, there has been an identifiable southern culture since colonial times while the north tends to continue to lose their identity. Most southern families can trace their relatives back for generations and this is all for all races.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...