The religious far right taking away rights

[winn dixie]

Above questions are answered in first post.
Trumpf and his brown shirts aka magas are responsible for Banning books abortion restrictions bans etc. Paxton and Abbott are attacking sex workers and now are responsible for porn sites going dark in texas. Love for the fuhrer has canted folks judgements

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Above questions are answered in first post.
Trumpf and his brown shirts aka magas are responsible for Banning books abortion restrictions bans etc. Paxton and Abbott are attacking sex workers and now are responsible for porn sites going dark in texas. Love for the fuhrer has canted folks judgements

All in the name of protecting people. They want to take us back to a time when people don’t know anything about reproductive biology and are restricted from using birth control.

Edited to remove banned topic. Sorry about that.

[HoHound]

Winn Dixie is proof of my earlier claim. The uniparty is real.

[HoHound]

brown shirts. you mean like Antifa and BLM?

[winn dixie]

So some of you are fine with losing rights. Over reaching govt. And church being deeply involved in govt affairs.

Got it
Yall realize this is a site that reviews sex workers blow by blow literally?

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Above questions are answered in first post.
Trumpf and his brown shirts aka magas are responsible for Banning books abortion restrictions bans etc. Paxton and Abbott are attacking sex workers and now are responsible for porn sites going dark in texas. Love for the fuhrer has canted folks judgements

That has nothing to do with Trump, that's Texas. Besides nothing you mentioned was a "Right" just flawed Laws past off as Rights. The only Rights that are worth protecting are our Constitutional Rights and the left is vigorously always trying to change or minimize are First and Second Amendment Rights.

[Yssup Rider]

That’s a simplistic attempt to justify supporting the efforts of today’s MAGA REPUBLICANS.

Trump and his hey boys in versions red states are running roughshod over the Ten Commandments to nary a peep from the white, god-fearing citizens of Rock Ridge.

These extremists aren’t about religion, or spirituality, or even human kindness. It’s just power over the great uneducated masses, as it has been for centuries.

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Above questions are answered in first post.
Trumpf and his brown shirts aka magas are responsible for Banning books abortion restrictions bans etc. Paxton and Abbott are attacking sex workers and now are responsible for porn sites going dark in texas. Love for the fuhrer has canted folks judgements

I can’t seem to get a straight definition of what a MAGA is. Best I can tell is it’s anyone who supports Trump over Biden, which would be somewhere north of 100,000,000 Americans.

BTW, what books were banned? (Here’s a hint: none)

Your take on abortion is also incorrect. Trump and SCOTUS are not responsible for any decisions about abortion. All Dodd does is give states back the power to make their own decisions. Ya know, like how that whole representative government thingy works.

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

They got their holy grail in reversing roe v wade. Blocking access to morning after pills and access to contraceptives. Banning books and taking away porn. Endless stings on sex workers and tricks. Going after gays and gender confused folks.


These religious radicals have just begun. Guess who they overwhelmingly support- trumpf
Coupled with all the nationalist anti gov agenda from the magas....
History is repeating itself
Don't believe me?

Mein kampf

Preferred reading of magaism

Well, let's see now:

It is my understanding that the Roe decision did not make abortion illegal. It did leave the right-life vs right-to-choose question up to the state legislatures and the voters in each state. The issue of contraception is wrapped up in that shift in legislative responsibility.

The book "banning" is pretty much an even more local issue best left to local school districts and community school boards. One aspect of thes is ensuring that books available to students are appropriate for their grade level, rather than outright banning.

The national outlook on legitimizing sex work has never been positive. Even during the Obama administration, the most liberal administration we have ever had with total control of both houses and the executive . . .and a SCOTUS more liberal than now, de-criminalizing sex work was a definat non-starter. The national character of the USA overall today is just not what is commonally found in national societies found in Europe.

Regarding a "nationalist, anti-[gov agenda"; No better statement of nationalism can be found than IS written in the preamble to The Constitution. The "ant--gov" part is found in the body of The Constitution and the Bill of Rights themselves.

I find that much of the content in the OP to be a repudiation of both documents.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Well, let's see now:

It is my understanding that the Roe decision did not make abortion illegal. It did leave the right-life vs right-to-choose question up to the state legislatures and the voters in each state. The issue of contraception is wrapped up in that shift in legislative responsibility.

The book "banning" is pretty much an even more local issue best left to local school districts and community school boards. One aspect of thes is ensuring that books available to students are appropriate for their grade level, rather than outright banning.

The national outlook on legitimizing sex work has never been positive. Even during the Obama administration, the most liberal administration we have ever had with total control of both houses and the executive . . .and a SCOTUS more liberal than now, de-criminalizing sex work was a definat non-starter. The national character of the USA overall today is just not what is commonally found in national societies found in Europe.

Regarding a "nationalist, anti-[gov agenda"; No better statement of nationalism can be found than IS written in the preamble to The Constitution. The "ant--gov" part is found in the body of The Constitution and the Bill of Rights themselves.

I find that much of the content in the OP to be a repudiation of both documents.

In my opinion the conservative “MAGA” movement isn’t anti government but rather it’s a repressive movement that wants to use government to control the people and make it into an image of what they feel is important. I’m not sure however that they can agree on exactly what that is.

That’s what happening in Texas. The state of Texas doesn’t like what the federal government does but they don’t like what the local cities and counties do either. They can’t overturn federal law but they sure can overturn local law if they don’t like it.

What I do know is that a backlash is coming. If it happens in the next election I think things will start to cool down. If Trump wins then things will only get worse before they get better.

[Yssup Rider]

It’s fascism. The people recognize that. Republicans are splintering rather than uniting behind Twitler and the Band of Dipshits. 25-30% of them will stay home. People of faith (who don’t spend their disposable income on televangelists) will abandon the religious right’s sick power grab in the name of decency.

The notion that this is nothing to do with religion is correct, I agree it’s about power and control.

It’s fascism. And we won’t stand for it.

PS - there is no porn in Texas. Outside of the Capitol, that is.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

I can’t seem to get a straight definition of what a MAGA is. Best I can tell is it’s anyone who supports Trump over Biden, which would be somewhere north of 100,000,000 Americans.

A great article by David Brooks that perfectly describes the current state of the GOP. It describes a reversion to the old days before Eisenhower.

The G.O.P. Returns to Its Bad Old Self

The Republican Party in the 1920s, ’30s and early ’40s was steeped in pessimism, and that pessimism showed up as it often does: as nativism, isolationism and protectionism. In 1924, Republicans set strict immigration quotas with the Johnson-Reed Act. As World War II loomed, Senator Gerald Nye urged the passage of several neutrality acts to keep us from exporting arms to warring nations and opposed Lend-Lease to Britain. Senator Robert Taft supported the America First movement before the United States joined the war, and after the war he opposed the Marshall Plan, NATO, the World Bank and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was designed to lower trade barriers.

Ronald Reagan gets most of the credit, but it was Ike, not Reagan, who transformed the G.O.P. from an anxious, inward-looking party into a confident, outward-facing one. He and his internationalist successors believed that the only way to prevent more world wars was to build a multilateral democratic world order.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/o...lican-gop.html

I would recommend everyone read this if they can.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

It’s fascism. The people recognize that. Republicans are splintering rather than uniting behind Twitler and the Band of Dipshits. 25-30% of them will stay home. People of faith (who don’t spend their disposable income on televangelists) will abandon the religious right’s sick power grab in the name of decency.

The notion that this is nothing to do with religion is correct, I agree it’s about power and control.

It’s fascism. And we won’t stand for it.

PS - there is no porn in Texas. Outside of the Capitol, that is.

you amuse me with your "fascist republican" nonsense

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

A great article by David Brooks that perfectly describes the current state of the GOP. It describes a reversion to the old days before Eisenhower.

The G.O.P. Returns to Its Bad Old Self

The Republican Party in the 1920s, ’30s and early ’40s was steeped in pessimism, and that pessimism showed up as it often does: as nativism, isolationism and protectionism. In 1924, Republicans set strict immigration quotas with the Johnson-Reed Act. As World War II loomed, Senator Gerald Nye urged the passage of several neutrality acts to keep us from exporting arms to warring nations and opposed Lend-Lease to Britain. Senator Robert Taft supported the America First movement before the United States joined the war, and after the war he opposed the Marshall Plan, NATO, the World Bank and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was designed to lower trade barriers.

Ronald Reagan gets most of the credit, but it was Ike, not Reagan, who transformed the G.O.P. from an anxious, inward-looking party into a confident, outward-facing one. He and his internationalist successors believed that the only way to prevent more world wars was to build a multilateral democratic world order.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/o...lican-gop.html

I would recommend everyone read this if they can.

you just amuse me



BAHHAAHHAAHAAAAAAA

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Well, let's see now:

It is my understanding that the Roe decision did not make abortion illegal. It did leave the right-life vs right-to-choose question up to the state legislatures and the voters in each state. The issue of contraception is wrapped up in that shift in legislative responsibility.

The book "banning" is pretty much an even more local issue best left to local school districts and community school boards. One aspect of thes is ensuring that books available to students are appropriate for their grade level, rather than outright banning.

The national outlook on legitimizing sex work has never been positive. Even during the Obama administration, the most liberal administration we have ever had with total control of both houses and the executive . . .and a SCOTUS more liberal than now, de-criminalizing sex work was a definat non-starter. The national character of the USA overall today is just not what is commonally found in national societies found in Europe.

Regarding a "nationalist, anti-[gov agenda"; No better statement of nationalism can be found than IS written in the preamble to The Constitution. The "ant--gov" part is found in the body of The Constitution and the Bill of Rights themselves.

I find that much of the content in the OP to be a repudiation of both documents.

The response posted by Waco above just this one does not address any of the points previously made by me, that are quoted in hix response.

I stand by the text and ideation of my post, while inviting discussion and comment that addresses that content.

[Yssup Rider]

Answered.

You just don’t like them.