Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And now they have the blood of highland park on their hands as well.

What an absurd comment. Typical.

DP. Maybe "absurd" to you but evidently you lack the cognitive faculty to connect the dots. SCOTUS overturning the 100 year old New York concealed carry law only emboldens gun obsessed nuts like the Highland Park shooter all the more.

People who apply for, and receive, a concealed carry permit are not the people doing these mass shootings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And now they have the blood of highland park on their hands as well.

What an absurd comment. Typical.

No. It is true. Which is why I would not bat an eyelash if someone with an AR-15 came after them and their families. Live by the sword. Die by the sword.

Wow. Doubling down on hateful and absurd. Can you be any less compassionate or more hateful?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And now they have the blood of highland park on their hands as well.

What an absurd comment. Typical.

No. It is true. Which is why I would not bat an eyelash if someone with an AR-15 came after them and their families. Live by the sword. Die by the sword.

Wow. Doubling down on hateful and absurd. Can you be any less compassionate or more hateful?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And now they have the blood of highland park on their hands as well.

What an absurd comment. Typical.

No. It is true. Which is why I would not bat an eyelash if someone with an AR-15 came after them and their families. Live by the sword. Die by the sword.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And now they have the blood of highland park on their hands as well.

What an absurd comment. Typical.

DP. Maybe "absurd" to you but evidently you lack the cognitive faculty to connect the dots. SCOTUS overturning the 100 year old New York concealed carry law only emboldens gun obsessed nuts like the Highland Park shooter all the more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And now they have the blood of highland park on their hands as well.

What an absurd comment. Typical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And now they have the blood of highland park on their hands as well.

What an absurd comment. Typical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not want a progressive Justice, voting to allow less restricted euthanasia, for example, to be threatened at their private home. I am for protecting Justices' families, and particularly minor children, from any controversy surrounding their parent's professional decisions.

It's hard to watch a Clarence and a treasonous Ginny strutting about without fear of consequences. It's hard to read Alito citing such racist and misogynist texts upon which to base his decision and writing about women in such a degrading manner.

But this is their job. They should not be disturbed at their home.

The protestors are on public property. I don’t think justices deserve special protection from peaceful protests. They already have effective protection against actual threats—the man who traveled to Kavanaugh’s house was arrested.

They’ve decided to live in liberal neighborhoods among people who disagree with them. The conservative justices can move out to rural MD or Va if they’d like to feel more comfortable.

This is a good point. They want the prestige and access that would otherwise come from their appointments.

They are free to move, just like women are for abortions now.

They demand a higher level of protection than the rest of us and as long as protests are peaceful, too bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"A close examination of the carefully worded answers by the three Trump appointees, however, shows that while each acknowledged at their hearings that Roe was precedent, and should be afforded the weight that that carries, none specifically committed to refusing to consider overturning it."

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times. None of these justices lied.

What was the intended effect of their answers?

“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

Ring a bell, ding-a-ling?

But that is not what they said, is it?

It is what they said. Even Collins and Manchin admitted they were lied to by the Justices.

They didn’t lie. They might have said Roe is precedent, which was true, and Collins took that as they would not overturn Roe. She heard what she wanted to hear.

If she truly feels misled, she can carve out an exception to the filibuster and codify Roe. She hasn’t done that so perhaps she is the one who is lying.

Anonymous wrote:Just let the Justices get concealed carry permits and strap themselves up with pistols under their robes, and equip their homes with AR-15s.

Republicans have repeatedly told us ad nauseam this is the solution and that nothing else can or should be done to protect anyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also January 6th and the GOP response to it erased any moral high ground you could claim relating to violent protest.

I've really never understood this line of reasoning. Two wrongs don't make a right. We learn this as children.

I can think that violent protest on 1/6 was reprehensible and also think that any subsequent violent protest that occurs "on the left" is also reprehensible.

There hasn’t been violent protest. Just because that’s how you forced birthers have acted doesn’t mean that that’s how pro choice advocates are doing it.

I am not a forced-birther. I was responding to the person who appeared to say that any member of the GOP could not claim that "violent protest" is wrong. And also possibly imply that violent protest is henceforth justified because of 1/6.
I am a registered democrat who thinks that certain things are morally/ethically/legally wrong or right regardless of the political party involved.

What I meant was the GOP doesn't get to simultaneously point to protests from the summer of 2020 as evidence of moral decay and violence by the left (as one poster in this thread is indeed doing) AND declare in their national party platform that Jan. 6th was "legitimate political discourse", which they officially did in February of this year.

Helpful. That wasn't clear from your post. What you describe is certainly hypocrisy.

But it remains that the logic used by the poster I originally responded to was very flawed.

If I previously cheered the murder of one man as a good thing and then later said that the murder of another man was a bad thing, I would be a hypocrite. But it wouldn't make the second murder justified, or not a bad thing.

The original poster you responded to was also me. Key words were "moral high ground", i.e., positioning themselves as morally superior. Maybe you didn't see this as much as I did in summer 2020, but the GOP firmly positioned themselves as standing for law and order and apple pie and expressed their deep, deep shock at every broken window only to turn around and cheer on the violent mob in D.C. 6 months later. The problem isn't someone on the right decrying violence. It's claiming that the left is violent and they're not. It's both hypocritical and a lie, and at this point just feels like gleefully admitting they're full of it and there's nothing we can do about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also January 6th and the GOP response to it erased any moral high ground you could claim relating to violent protest.

I've really never understood this line of reasoning. Two wrongs don't make a right. We learn this as children.

I can think that violent protest on 1/6 was reprehensible and also think that any subsequent violent protest that occurs "on the left" is also reprehensible.

There hasn’t been violent protest. Just because that’s how you forced birthers have acted doesn’t mean that that’s how pro choice advocates are doing it.

I am not a forced-birther. I was responding to the person who appeared to say that any member of the GOP could not claim that "violent protest" is wrong. And also possibly imply that violent protest is henceforth justified because of 1/6.
I am a registered democrat who thinks that certain things are morally/ethically/legally wrong or right regardless of the political party involved.

What I meant was the GOP doesn't get to simultaneously point to protests from the summer of 2020 as evidence of moral decay and violence by the left (as one poster in this thread is indeed doing) AND declare in their national party platform that Jan. 6th was "legitimate political discourse", which they officially did in February of this year.

Helpful. That wasn't clear from your post. What you describe is certainly hypocrisy.

But it remains that the logic used by the poster I originally responded to was very flawed.

If I previously cheered the murder of one man as a good thing and then later said that the murder of another man was a bad thing, I would be a hypocrite. But it wouldn't make the second murder justified, or not a bad thing.

Anonymous wrote:And now they have the blood of highland park on their hands as well.