Create new account | My Profile | My Account | My Bookmarks | My Inbox | Help | Log in

Home Latest Threads Greatest Threads Forums & Groups My Subscriptions My Posts

DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So i'm finding this confu...

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 03:10 PM

NotANeocon (410 posts)

So i'm finding this confusing!

I fully understand why the anti womens rights pro deathers get confused and insist that a pregnant human is two people but refuse to discuss how the reproductive graft part can exercise its rights without enslaving the host part - which is unconstitutional.

Now I am seeing two distinct persons being legally treated as a single entity simply because one is a member of the USSC, I understand the holy babble says that with marriage "the two shall become "as" one, but that is symbolism and not reality. There is no proof that Clarence is doing the crime so he can't be automatically charged with Ginni's crimes.

As Yul Brynner reminded us -

There are times I almost think
Nobody sure of what he absolutely know
Everybody find confusion
In conclusion he concluded long ago
And it puzzle me to learn
That tho' a man may be in doubt of what he know
Very quickly he will fight
He'll fight to prove that what he does not know is so!

But... is a puzzlement!

26 replies, 1400 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

26 replies	Author	Time	Post
So i'm finding this confusing! (Original post)	NotANeocon	Mar 2022	OP
I found this very confusing.	SoonerPride	Mar 2022	#1
I'm confused n/t	leftstreet	Mar 2022	#2
Ok, I just sang that! Thanks for the smile today! Nt	woodsprite	Mar 2022	#3
not confusing...	markie	Mar 2022	#4
If his wife was involved in the insurrection	Bettie	Mar 2022	#5
I think the difference lies between legal jurisprudence and public sentiment	Torchlight	Mar 2022	#6
Could you clarify this word salad?	Crunchy Frog	Mar 2022	#7
For clarity -	NotANeocon	Mar 2022	#16
When has the legal system tried to treat them as one person? nt	Crunchy Frog	Mar 2022	#19
It is very simple	ripcord	Mar 2022	#8
True - but	NotANeocon	Mar 2022	#17
God took a rib from Adam	multigraincracker	Mar 2022	#9
In KJV Genesis it says	NotANeocon	Mar 2022	#20
KJV is the trusted version as	multigraincracker	Mar 2022	#21
Do they have a joint checking account? If so they are one in a entity	Walleye	Mar 2022	#10
Perhaps I can help alleviate your confusion.	lagomorph777	Mar 2022	#11
Her texts/emails	Zeitghost	Mar 2022	#13
IMO this is not about what you think it is	mercuryblues	Mar 2022	#12
This is not true	Zeitghost	Mar 2022	#14
There are more documents that they were fighting from being handed over.	mercuryblues	Mar 2022	#15
As I see it -	NotANeocon	Mar 2022	#18
If he participated in the insurrection, he is not invulnerable (or "inviolable").	lagomorph777	Mar 2022	#24
Ginni participated Clarence did not -	NotANeocon	Mar 2022	#25
Highly unlikely.	lagomorph777	Mar 2022	#26
I didn't realize that a fetus has its own rights - OK!	FakeNoose	Mar 2022	#22
Following Texas -	NotANeocon	Mar 2022	#23

Response to NotANeocon (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 03:11 PM

SoonerPride (12,286 posts)

1. I found this very confusing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NotANeocon (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 03:13 PM

leftstreet (34,965 posts)

2. I'm confused n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NotANeocon (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 03:16 PM

woodsprite (11,525 posts)

3. Ok, I just sang that! Thanks for the smile today! Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NotANeocon (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 03:17 PM

markie (22,477 posts)

4. not confusing...

it's what we do

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NotANeocon (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 03:18 PM

Bettie (14,937 posts)

5. If his wife was involved in the insurrection

he should, at very least recuse from cases about the insurrection.

If you can not see a conflict of interest there, well, think about how loudly the other side (and the media) would be howling if the spouse of one of the more liberal justices had tried to overturn the results of an election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NotANeocon (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 03:18 PM

Torchlight (2,164 posts)

6. I think the difference lies between legal jurisprudence and public sentiment

I think opinions expressed on a message board lack legal consequence and are often filled with visceral and emotional responses. Courts on the other hand, can express consequences in such a way as to remove freedoms.

Much as I recognize (and agree with) the Duggar's legal rights to bear as many children as they wish, I can also express surprise (and even distaste) at and for them for acting in such a manner. It's not a contradiction if we allow for context and nuance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NotANeocon (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 03:18 PM

Crunchy Frog (26,321 posts)

7. Could you clarify this word salad?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Crunchy Frog (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 10:07 PM

NotANeocon (410 posts)

16. For clarity -

A pregnant woman is one person and should not be treated legally as two people.

The Thomas' are two people and should not be treated as one person.

In applying "guilt" it seems there is a difficulty dealing with each person as a single entity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NotANeocon (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 10:24 PM

Crunchy Frog (26,321 posts)

19. When has the legal system tried to treat them as one person? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NotANeocon (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 03:19 PM

ripcord (3,956 posts)

8. It is very simple

Clarence is supposed to control his woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ripcord (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 10:10 PM

NotANeocon (410 posts)

17. True - but

if Ginni causes harm Clarence should not go to the hoosegow for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NotANeocon (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 03:21 PM

multigraincracker (30,312 posts)

9. God took a rib from Adam

and then cloned it and then transgendered it into Eve. Now he gives us about one out of every 1,500 births as a hermaphrodite to remind us.
Tune in next week for more Bible Stories. God Bless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to multigraincracker (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 10:28 PM

NotANeocon (410 posts)

20. In KJV Genesis it says

Man AND woman made he them - so the original was hermaphroditic. Then he separated the man from the woman (possibly found some pronoun trouble in situ).

I suspect the sky fairy regularly produces the same design flaws in hir creatures to this day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NotANeocon (Reply #20)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 10:39 PM

multigraincracker (30,312 posts)

21. KJV is the trusted version as

he was a gay man, or perhaps bi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NotANeocon (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 03:26 PM

Walleye (24,536 posts)

10. Do they have a joint checking account? If so they are one in a entity

Did they file a joint tax return? I think this discussion is a result of overthinking. If a judge is presiding over a trial where his wife is the defendant don’t you think he should recuse himself?Doesn’t a spouse have a legal protection against testifying against the other spouse? What is this based on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NotANeocon (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 03:43 PM

lagomorph777 (30,613 posts)

11. Perhaps I can help alleviate your confusion.

If there was any doubt over whether Clarence was aware of, approved of, and participated in, the crimes his wife committed, he erased that doubt when he ruled that her text messages should be kept secret. There are 6 hard-right extremists on SCROTUS. Five of them ruled against the Thomases. Only Thomas himself ruled to cover his ass (and his wife's).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 03:51 PM

Zeitghost (2,735 posts)

13. Her texts/emails

Were never part of a SCotUS case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NotANeocon (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 03:48 PM

mercuryblues (13,212 posts)

12. IMO this is not about what you think it is

His vote on the SC to hide Meadows texts is where the problem is. He voted to hide his wife's involvement in the insurrection. That is corruption, he needs to go.

He was the lone no vote in that decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercuryblues (Reply #12)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 03:52 PM

Zeitghost (2,735 posts)

14. This is not true

Her communications to Meadows were already in the J6 committee's possession.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Zeitghost (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 04:19 PM

mercuryblues (13,212 posts)

15. There are more documents that they were fighting from being handed over.

Thomas voted to hide those ones. Meadows handed over the texts, we are talking about, then stopped cooperating. Thomas voted to hide any further info from being handed over.

The messages are particularly noteworthy in light of Justice Thomas’ lone dissent, earlier this year, against a ruling that gave the Jan. 6 committee access to documents from Trump’s time in office — documents that could very well include his wife’s communications.

Here’s just a sample of the deranged messages Ginni Thomas and Meadows shared, according to the Post.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/ginni-thomas-mark-meadows-clarence-thomas-rcna21531

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercuryblues (Reply #12)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 10:16 PM

NotANeocon (410 posts)

18. As I see it -

CT did not break any clearly defined SC rules so his actions as a justice are inviolable. When there is a code of ethics for the SC he will have to change his actions but at this point he is home free. He was not voting to "hide" anything but to refuse to display evidence like Schrödinger's texts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NotANeocon (Reply #18)

Tue Mar 29, 2022, 03:19 PM

lagomorph777 (30,613 posts)

24. If he participated in the insurrection, he is not invulnerable (or "inviolable").

SCROTUS members are not above the law.

In principle, he can go to jail like anybody else.

Of course, in real life, Republicans don't go to jail for major crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #24)

Tue Mar 29, 2022, 04:01 PM

NotANeocon (410 posts)

25. Ginni participated Clarence did not -

Therefore he is legally inviolable

MEANING
never to be broken, infringed, or dishonored.
untouchable
unalterable
unchallengeable
unbreakable
impregnable
sacrosanct
sacred
holy
hallowed
intemerate

while Ginni is still jailbait on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NotANeocon (Reply #25)

Tue Mar 29, 2022, 04:14 PM

lagomorph777 (30,613 posts)

26. Highly unlikely.

Beyond incredible.

No, Clarence was up to his eyeballs in insurrection too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NotANeocon (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 10:48 PM

FakeNoose (29,077 posts)

22. I didn't realize that a fetus has its own rights - OK!

So the next time I'm pregnant I get to vote twice. Once for myself and once for my fetus.

That'll work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to FakeNoose (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 29, 2022, 03:16 PM

NotANeocon (410 posts)

23. Following Texas -

many of the state governments are asking to give rights to combined human gametes - but only Rethug combinations will be granted votes because the new laws are not bi-partizan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

General Discussion (Forum)