How did I "make up nonsense about" half of the nation celebrating the idea that parts of the Executive Branch would blatantly ignore the rulings of the Judicial Branch?
I'll break down the headline for you, and share some sentiments from the left, since you are seemingly unable to do so yourself. I'll even use the Occupy Democrats tweet as the prime example so you can't claim that it's just "rightwing nonsense".
It says right there: DEFY the Supreme Court; WILL NOT RECOGNIZE the laws as a result of the Supreme Court's decision.
The Pentagon, HQ for the Department of the Defense, is a part of the Executive Branch.
The Supreme Court, the highest ranking court in the land, is part of the Judicial Branch.
The Pentagon, again part of the Executive Branch, says (according to the headline) it will defy the Supreme Court (again, part of the Judicial Branch) and will not recognize the laws as a result of the Supreme Court's decision (I said decree, which is the legal term for the decision of a court).
In plain English, the headline states that part of the Executive Branch will willfully ignore the laws of the land because they disagree with the decree of the Supreme Court.
Now, for where those on the left are seemingly celebrating? Here's a sampling of the replies to that tweet:
"HELL YES!!! This is great news!"
"F*** yes!"
"Nice!"
"GOOD!!!! (4 thumbs up emojis)"
"Exactly what I said... don't listen to the political, illegitimate court!!!"
"THIS. IS. FANTASTIC."
Did you or did you not state "half the nation . . . "? Because I'm pretty sure that the nation has a population of roughly 334 million people. I'm also pretty sure that "OccupyDemocrats" does not speak for 167 million people. How many people were behind your quote? 1? 10? Perhaps something just a bit short of 167 million?
Further, a tweet by OccupyDemocrats is not an official Pentagon communication and has no bearing on Pentagon policy. At least last time I checked.
Try to be better.
It seems to me that it's pretty established that on this thread, we make blanket generalizations. You and others on the left have, plenty of times, derided the right and called it "half of the nation" before. Do you believe we shouldn't make such statements anymore? I'd agree, but that doesn't seem to me to be the generally accepted way of doing things around here so why would I change my ways while others don't?
I agree that a tweet from OccupyDemocrats is not an official Pentagon communication and has no bearing on Pentagon policy. I never said it did, and specified that well before you even started replying to this conversation. What I did say was that I made a reactionary post after reading tweets and headlines from multiple sources after running across the story on twitter when "Pentagon" was trending. Since then, I've just been addressing the reaction from those on the left. And replying to you explaining what was said since you were unable to understand it the first time around.
Perhaps you should try to be better at comprehending what has already been said.
How did I "make up nonsense about" half of the nation celebrating the idea that parts of the Executive Branch would blatantly ignore the rulings of the Judicial Branch?
I'll break down the headline for you, and share some sentiments from the left, since you are seemingly unable to do so yourself. I'll even use the Occupy Democrats tweet as the prime example so you can't claim that it's just "rightwing nonsense".
It says right there: DEFY the Supreme Court; WILL NOT RECOGNIZE the laws as a result of the Supreme Court's decision.
The Pentagon, HQ for the Department of the Defense, is a part of the Executive Branch.
The Supreme Court, the highest ranking court in the land, is part of the Judicial Branch.
The Pentagon, again part of the Executive Branch, says (according to the headline) it will defy the Supreme Court (again, part of the Judicial Branch) and will not recognize the laws as a result of the Supreme Court's decision (I said decree, which is the legal term for the decision of a court).
In plain English, the headline states that part of the Executive Branch will willfully ignore the laws of the land because they disagree with the decree of the Supreme Court.
Now, for where those on the left are seemingly celebrating? Here's a sampling of the replies to that tweet:
"HELL YES!!! This is great news!"
"F*** yes!"
"Nice!"
"GOOD!!!! (4 thumbs up emojis)"
"Exactly what I said... don't listen to the political, illegitimate court!!!"
"THIS. IS. FANTASTIC."
Here, let me help you out just a bit more.
An intelligent poster with integrity, faced with the same information that you were faced with, might have said something along the lines of:
"It is troubling that some on the left both misrepresent a Pentagon statement and further, celebrate their own misrepresentation."
You could add a few words to expand on this wording. But that would be the essence of it rather than the nonsense you chose to post.
Let me help you out with the timeline, since you're struggling:
1. I was browsing twitter. I saw "Pentagon" trending so I clicked on the link to see what was being discussed. I saw several posts talking about this issue, including a few with the headline that I summarized in my initial post on the topic. I then did a quick internet search to make sure there were articles with the same sentiment in the headlines to doublecheck.
2. I made my initial post, sharing my concern that a) the Pentagon apparently said this thing, and b) that people on the left were celebrating it.
3. I read the content of the news stories and, like I said when responding to Sally, it did indeed appear that Austin didn't say those exact words and what he said was less problematic.
4. I came back onto this thread, noted that the troll "El Runkin" had decided to declare that he too believed that the military should not need to listen to the supreme court, and made the post I made in reply to Sally that the headline I posted was not 100% accurate but that the response from the left was troubling.
5. You come into the thread claiming I am "making up nonsense" about the response to these headlines, and in reply I show you that I'm not making up nonsense: that is what is being said of those headlines. And now you're making these posts when faced with the sample of evidence of what those on the left are saying.
"examining the decision" means they are trying to interpret the ruling so they will know how to follow the law.
I don't understand what the fuss is about.
Fat Hurts - do you not understand what the Supreme Court did? It seems you don't. There is no interpretation of the ruling. There is no examination of the ruling. They overturned Roe v Wade. They reversed Roe v. Wade. They VACATED Roe v. Wade. Roe V. Wade is like it never existed. For Lloyd Austin to say they need to 'EXAMINE" the decision is idiotic. Again, it is as if Roe V. Wade never happened. Nothing to look at. The military and everyone else has to forget about Roe V. Wade and look at individual states to see how they govern abortion rights.
Do you not understand that the decision is 63 pages long?
If you are the US Military, responsible for abortion policy in a military health care system that spans all 50 states and many various countries and military bases throughout the world, you definitely need to examine and interpret the decision in order to comply with the law.
Fat Hurts - do you not understand what the Supreme Court did? It seems you don't. There is no interpretation of the ruling. There is no examination of the ruling. They overturned Roe v Wade. They reversed Roe v. Wade. They VACATED Roe v. Wade. Roe V. Wade is like it never existed. For Lloyd Austin to say they need to 'EXAMINE" the decision is idiotic. Again, it is as if Roe V. Wade never happened. Nothing to look at. The military and everyone else has to forget about Roe V. Wade and look at individual states to see how they govern abortion rights.
Do you not understand that the decision is 63 pages long?
If you are the US Military, responsible for abortion policy in a military health care system that spans all 50 states and many various countries and military bases throughout the world, you definitely need to examine and interpret the decision in order to comply with the law.
IMHO, that's a good thing for the GOP. Brian Kemp in Georgia has shown that you don't need trump to win. He beat trumps primary challenger by 70 points. All of trumps picks lost in their runoffs in Georgia. This talk about the GOP needs trump is patently false.
BTW, Biden continues to sink in the polls. 66% disapprove of his handling of the economy and 71% disapprove of his handling of inflation. Only a 40% approval rating overall.
"examining the decision" means they are trying to interpret the ruling so they will know how to follow the law.
I don't understand what the fuss is about.
Fat Hurts - do you not understand what the Supreme Court did? It seems you don't. There is no interpretation of the ruling. There is no examination of the ruling. They overturned Roe v Wade. They reversed Roe v. Wade. They VACATED Roe v. Wade. Roe V. Wade is like it never existed. For Lloyd Austin to say they need to 'EXAMINE" the decision is idiotic. Again, it is as if Roe V. Wade never happened. Nothing to look at. The military and everyone else has to forget about Roe V. Wade and look at individual states to see how they govern abortion rights.
I think it largely comes down to how you interpret what Austin said.
If you interpret it, like the headlines I posted before, that they are even considering going against the laws of the land that might be enacted, then yes it's very problematic and worrisome.
However, if you interpret his words as essentially saying they are going to look into how they might be able to recruiting women into the military and how they are going to station them when they might end up in a situation where they want an abortion (e.g., add an extra step in determining where women should be stationed by maybe asking them if they are willing to be stationed in states like Texas and the deep South, or be more responsive to requests for transfer from women in case of an accidental pregnancy) then it's less troublesome because it's not about him potentially defying the supreme court but rather examining how to move forward now that Roe v. Wade doesn't exist and states might soon pass laws limiting or banning abortion.
An intelligent poster with integrity, faced with the same information that you were faced with, might have said something along the lines of:
"It is troubling that some on the left both misrepresent a Pentagon statement and further, celebrate their own misrepresentation."
You could add a few words to expand on this wording. But that would be the essence of it rather than the nonsense you chose to post.
Let me help you out with the timeline, since you're struggling:
1. I was browsing twitter. I saw "Pentagon" trending so I clicked on the link to see what was being discussed. I saw several posts talking about this issue, including a few with the headline that I summarized in my initial post on the topic. I then did a quick internet search to make sure there were articles with the same sentiment in the headlines to doublecheck.
2. I made my initial post, sharing my concern that a) the Pentagon apparently said this thing, and b) that people on the left were celebrating it.
3. I read the content of the news stories and, like I said when responding to Sally, it did indeed appear that Austin didn't say those exact words and what he said was less problematic.
4. I came back onto this thread, noted that the troll "El Runkin" had decided to declare that he too believed that the military should not need to listen to the supreme court, and made the post I made in reply to Sally that the headline I posted was not 100% accurate but that the response from the left was troubling.
5. You come into the thread claiming I am "making up nonsense" about the response to these headlines, and in reply I show you that I'm not making up nonsense: that is what is being said of those headlines. And now you're making these posts when faced with the sample of evidence of what those on the left are saying.
I accept that you are either disingenuous or unintelligent. Or both.
Do you not understand that the decision is 63 pages long?
If you are the US Military, responsible for abortion policy in a military health care system that spans all 50 states and many various countries and military bases throughout the world, you definitely need to examine and interpret the decision in order to comply with the law.
Roe V. Wade was vacated. Nothing else to look at.
You've said some pretty dumb things in your time, but this is right up there.
There will be entire books written about the interpretation of the Dobbs decision.
And, it will have a massive effect on military policy and procedure. That's why the military employs teams of lawyers to sort these things out.
"examining the decision" means they are trying to interpret the ruling so they will know how to follow the law.
I don't understand what the fuss is about.
Fat Hurts - do you not understand what the Supreme Court did? It seems you don't. There is no interpretation of the ruling. There is no examination of the ruling. They overturned Roe v Wade. They reversed Roe v. Wade. They VACATED Roe v. Wade. Roe V. Wade is like it never existed. For Lloyd Austin to say they need to 'EXAMINE" the decision is idiotic. Again, it is as if Roe V. Wade never happened. Nothing to look at. The military and everyone else has to forget about Roe V. Wade and look at individual states to see how they govern abortion rights.
That's an incredibly naive perception of how America works, Sally. America is a complicated society with complicated rules. The majority opinion in Dobbs opinion is 62 PDF pages long. It recites a LOT more than "Roe is overruled." (Even if that was all it said, one would still have to read Roe to figure out what was overruled). Legal opinions are specifically required to set forth in detail their reasoning and methodology and the scope of their ruling, so as to provide guidance to all those who may be affected so that they can plan their affairs accordingly. There is abundant information in all SCOTUS decisions that must be reviewed by affected decision makers and advisors in all aspects of society. Contrary to your assertion above, it would be idiotic (and probably a dereliction of duty) if Lloyd Austin DIDN'T assign a team of JAGs to carefully review Dobbs to fully understand what their obligations and options are going forward.
There are thousands of federal, state and local departments and agencies around the country who will have teams of lawyers reviewing Dobbs this coming week. That's the reality of working life in America, and you would almost have to be some kind of shut-in not to know that.
You've said some pretty dumb things in your time, but this is right up there.
There will be entire books written about the interpretation of the Dobbs decision.
And, it will have a massive effect on military policy and procedure. That's why the military employs teams of lawyers to sort these things out.
Was Roe V. Wade overturned or was it not? YOu tell me the answer. I don't care how many pages the ruling is - if Roe V. Wade was vacated then nothing else matters. Take the 63 pages in the ruling and toss them in the toilet.
Do you not understand that the decision is 63 pages long?
If you are the US Military, responsible for abortion policy in a military health care system that spans all 50 states and many various countries and military bases throughout the world, you definitely need to examine and interpret the decision in order to comply with the law.
Let me help you out with the timeline, since you're struggling:
1. I was browsing twitter. I saw "Pentagon" trending so I clicked on the link to see what was being discussed. I saw several posts talking about this issue, including a few with the headline that I summarized in my initial post on the topic. I then did a quick internet search to make sure there were articles with the same sentiment in the headlines to doublecheck.
2. I made my initial post, sharing my concern that a) the Pentagon apparently said this thing, and b) that people on the left were celebrating it.
3. I read the content of the news stories and, like I said when responding to Sally, it did indeed appear that Austin didn't say those exact words and what he said was less problematic.
4. I came back onto this thread, noted that the troll "El Runkin" had decided to declare that he too believed that the military should not need to listen to the supreme court, and made the post I made in reply to Sally that the headline I posted was not 100% accurate but that the response from the left was troubling.
5. You come into the thread claiming I am "making up nonsense" about the response to these headlines, and in reply I show you that I'm not making up nonsense: that is what is being said of those headlines. And now you're making these posts when faced with the sample of evidence of what those on the left are saying.
I accept that you are either disingenuous or unintelligent. Or both.
You know, it's pretty incredible that after being shown in plenty of detail how you are wrong, you continue with insults and either pretend that what I bring up (people on the left celebrating the idea that part of the executive branch should willfully ignore decrees of the judicial branch and laws of the legislative branch) is irrelevant or simply lack the ability to comprehend the point being made. All without acknowledging that you were indeed wrong in the first place - and yet the other person is the one that is either disingenuous or unintelligent.
I accept that you are either disingenuous or unintelligent. Or both.
You know, it's pretty incredible that after being shown in plenty of detail how you are wrong, you continue with insults and either pretend that what I bring up (people on the left celebrating the idea that part of the executive branch should willfully ignore decrees of the judicial branch and laws of the legislative branch) is irrelevant or simply lack the ability to comprehend the point being made. All without acknowledging that you were indeed wrong in the first place - and yet the other person is the one that is either disingenuous or unintelligent.
You know, it's pretty incredible that after being shown in plenty of detail how you are wrong, you continue with insults and either pretend that what I bring up (people on the left celebrating the idea that part of the executive branch should willfully ignore decrees of the judicial branch and laws of the legislative branch) is irrelevant or simply lack the ability to comprehend the point being made. All without acknowledging that you were indeed wrong in the first place - and yet the other person is the one that is either disingenuous or unintelligent.
You are an idiot.
Can I get some clarification here? Am I an idiot for thinking that it's a problem that people believe we should throw away the checks and balances that our government is founded upon and that parts of the government should ignore laws? Am I an idiot for shining a spotlight on how people are saying that? Am I an idiot for showing how Real Obvi is wrong in his statements? Or are you just saying this because you want to join Real Obvi in his insulting without regard to the conversation and his proven lack of understanding of it?
Let me help you out with the timeline, since you're struggling:
1. I was browsing twitter. I saw "Pentagon" trending so I clicked on the link to see what was being discussed. I saw several posts talking about this issue, including a few with the headline that I summarized in my initial post on the topic. I then did a quick internet search to make sure there were articles with the same sentiment in the headlines to doublecheck.
2. I made my initial post, sharing my concern that a) the Pentagon apparently said this thing, and b) that people on the left were celebrating it.
3. I read the content of the news stories and, like I said when responding to Sally, it did indeed appear that Austin didn't say those exact words and what he said was less problematic.
4. I came back onto this thread, noted that the troll "El Runkin" had decided to declare that he too believed that the military should not need to listen to the supreme court, and made the post I made in reply to Sally that the headline I posted was not 100% accurate but that the response from the left was troubling.
5. You come into the thread claiming I am "making up nonsense" about the response to these headlines, and in reply I show you that I'm not making up nonsense: that is what is being said of those headlines. And now you're making these posts when faced with the sample of evidence of what those on the left are saying.
I accept that you are either disingenuous or unintelligent. Or both.
Calling him disingenuous is too forgiving. He's a nads-out liar and purveyor of falsehoods. He posted the demonstrably false statement that "The Pentagon stated that they will ignore the decrees of the Supreme Court" and he only began trying to walk that back when he got flat cold busted on it.
And then he still can't stop himself from engaging in Clintonesque "depends what 'is' is" nuanced BS by blaming it on the social media headlines, instead of his own false statements, with garbage like "not quite the same," "headlines don't appear to be 100% the case of what's being said," and "was not 100% accurate." His statements weren't accurate at all. They were FALSE. See Post #24783 ("Yes, you heard that right: part of the Executive Branch stated publicly and proudly that they will defy the Judicial Branch of the government."). We didn't hear JACK right. All we heard was FAKE NEWS from a habitual and discredited liar. See Proverbs 12:22 ("Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord"). See also Revelation 22:15 ("Outside are the . . . idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.").
IMHO, that's a good thing for the GOP. Brian Kemp in Georgia has shown that you don't need trump to win. He beat trumps primary challenger by 70 points. All of trumps picks lost in their runoffs in Georgia. This talk about the GOP needs trump is patently false.
BTW, Biden continues to sink in the polls. 66% disapprove of his handling of the economy and 71% disapprove of his handling of inflation. Only a 40% approval rating overall.
The vast majority of Trump endorsed candidates won their primaries & many RINOS have been ousted. Liz Cheney's primary is in August and her seat is already gone. This midterm is much more than just Georgia. Don't be shocked if the GOP takes the NY gov race too.
A massive red earthquake is hitting all of America on Nov 8th.