So much for the rule of law

Nice, but many can be bought.

 

Except while the Constitution says nothing about unborn persons it say nothing about abortion and therefore none of the SCOTUS' business or authority.

 

Do you care for some more links that completely destroy your claim?

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wir...decry-capitol-riot-grievances-remain-75123334

 

Sure you have.

Obama taught Alinsky methods and Obama's spouse used direct quotes from Alinsky.

 

They are in total denial over their lucifer lover

 

Alinsky was history back in the late 1960s. He was the product of the labor union movement in the 1930s that was never the same after WW2.

His organizing tactics were for a different era, and his conception of the economy was faulty, clouded by a belief in collective production.

 

We could go down the list one by one of his rules for radicals and see how relevant it is today

 

Where is the evidence Obama "taught Alinsky methods" (whatever that means). What exactly was "taught?'

Your claim reeks of BS. There was no body of Alinsky work that constitutes teachable skills.

 

Roe v. Wade went too far because there is nothing in the Constitution that points to the fetus being a person. Abortion should be entirely legal.

Anyway, who the hell cares what Joe Biden thinks?

 

In the Declaration of Independence.

But not personhood. People in the 18th Century knew the fetus was alive, but even the Catholic Church okayed abortion until the quickening. The fetus was not considered a person at conception.

Where does the Constitution say the fetus is a person?

 

No one evidently, you would think the people that voted for him would but evidently they do not either

 

But it has plenty to say about the rights of people. The state has no business limiting the rights of women based on an imagined person inside a woman.

 

What Joe thinks about abortion is irrelevant.

 

No doubt.

 

We could. It isn't.

 

It is, to a t.

 

Where does it say that they aren’t and thus not entitled to human rights?

 

The Constitution guarantees individual rights for people. There was no thought on June 21, 1788 that the fetus was a person. It was subsequent interpretations, including Roe v. Wade, that were based SCOTUS inventing rights for the fetus.

Since when can legislators decide women have fewer rights than men because they decide nonpersons are persons?

I find it ironic anti-abortion types complain about Roe v. Wade finding rights for women when in fact it was finding rights for the fetus.

 

My response:



You may want to go towards the end of this YT video from an actual OB/GYN.

 

Was conservative media really denouncing the violence or were they using it as an excuse to project the false claims that the election was stolen?

From the article, it said, "nother popular theme was the suggestion, to date unsubstantiated, that Antifa demonstrators infiltrated the crowd at the Capitol to cause trouble. “Were left-wing provocateurs leading the way into the Capitol?” questioned Thomas Lifson of American Thinker."

Or

Tucker Carlson added, “Millions of Americans sincerely believe the last election was fake,” Carlson said. “You can dismiss them as crazy, you can call them conspiracy theorists, you can kick them off Twitter, but that won't change their minds." And then he said, "It's not your fault, It's their fault.”

Or

Mark Davis wrote, "the indefensible behavior of the rioters does not erase the righteous grievance of millions of Americans who have lost faith in an election system cast to the winds of political opportunism.”

All three excerpts from your own link started off with condemnation of the riots but then added and continued to justify why the riots happened in the first place; namely, the unsubstantiated claims that the election was stolen.

That does not sound like a legitimate or honest or even humble example of true disgust. We call that lip service.

And before you go any further, yes, both sides do this, period.

Again, what is the double standard here.

 

You said they did not condemn it at all.

"At all" has a very specific meaning.

I seem to remember you accusing me of moving the goal post but evidently that's just fine for you.

 

My question was based on intent, not the words. The intent by conservative media was never to condone the January 6 insurrection, it was used as cover to continue the argument that the election was stolen.

 

You should put wheels on your goal post that'll be easier to move around that way

 

Exactly!

 

LOL, you read but did not comprehend what I wrote, did you?

So here is the question. Is it really condemning the actions when you also agree with what they did to begin with? Remember, the whole point of January 6th was based on the lie that it was stolen. Each one from your article made that abundantly clear that despite says they condemn the violence, each statement from each of the conservative hosts went on, some in length, to justify the very actions. That, to me is not condemnation at all.