unarmedman, come back.

All is forgiven.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:I changed "Decisive Moral Issue" to "Divisive Moral Issue" (as edited), which I believe was the intent of the poster.

yo holmes , i meant decisive (my intent) , but either will do.

my lack of care about spelling and grammer may be a symbol that i am a dunce, but i always thought they made a neat cap.

unarmedman, come back.

All is forgiven.

i'm here, i'm here....haven't gone anywhere. just on the sidelines.

placeholder wrote:
kerble wrote:

How'd I do? 5 out of 6?


Faiz,

I think you just won.

Congrats,

Jacques

Awesome. Do I get a free Abortion?


Faiz

this has to be the funniest post ever.

capnreverb wrote:yo holmes , i meant decisive (my intent) , but either will do.

Okay. As revised!

Not sure I understand, but as revised!

"I'm not a girl, I'm a guy you know? But at the same time, I tell ya how you can solve this abortion issue right now. Ready? Those unwanted babies that single moms leave in alleys and in dumpsters? Leave about 12 of those on the steps of The Supreme Court. This is over. Like that. "You guys said we had to have them? Then you guys...FUCKING RAISE 'EM." "Raise 'em then, you fucking raise 'em. YOU raise 'em. You said I had to have it? Then it's yours. Fuck. It's yours..Take it"

-Bill Hicks

wow, that's just ridiculous. considering the number of folks just waiting to be able to adopt a fresh newborn baby, that joke doesn't make a lick of sense. sounds more like propaganda than something funny or logical for that matter. i mean, honestly, would the supreme court justices (who are all really old, right?) have any trouble getting those babies into adoptive homes? fuck no they wouldn't. which is the same thing that anti-abortion folks would argue is the proper thing to do, rather than leave your baby in an alley. give it up for adoption. this joke would still not be funny, but at least would make a lick of sense, if folks were arguing that there should be no adoption, but that monthers should be forced to raise the babies they gave birth to rather than dump them in an alley. no, it's not funny nor does it make any sense. and can we please just let this thread die and get back to talking about, i dunno, anything else?

toomanyhelicopters wrote:wow, that's just ridiculous. considering the number of folks just waiting to be able to adopt a fresh newborn baby, that joke doesn't make a lick of sense. sounds more like propaganda than something funny or logical for that matter. i mean, honestly, would the supreme court justices (who are all really old, right?) have any trouble getting those babies into adoptive homes? fuck no they wouldn't. which is the same thing that anti-abortion folks would argue is the proper thing to do, rather than leave your baby in an alley. give it up for adoption. this joke would still not be funny, but at least would make a lick of sense, if folks were arguing that there should be no adoption, but that monthers should be forced to raise the babies they gave birth to rather than dump them in an alley. no, it's not funny nor does it make any sense. and can we please just let this thread die and get back to talking about, i dunno, anything else?

No, if you read carefully, the joke implies that the Justices who presumably have overturned Roe v. Wade would have to raise the baby, not that it would simply be placed up for adoption. It's kinda like "Three Men and a Baby," but a lot angrier. And funnier. And sans Ted Danson.

This thread woulda died a lot faster if you hadnt felt the need to publicly express your pain caused by misunderstanding this joke.

I should take my own advice.

...

endofanera wrote:

toomanyhelicopters wrote:this joke would still not be funny, but at least would make a lick of sense, if folks were arguing that there should be no adoption, but that monthers should be forced to raise the babies they gave birth to rather than dump them in an alley.

No, if you read carefully, the joke implies that the Justices who presumably have overturned Roe v. Wade would have to raise the baby, not that it would simply be placed up for adoption. It's kinda like "Three Men and a Baby," but a lot angrier. And funnier. And sans Ted Danson.

yeah, see, i got that. but i guess my sense of humor just doesn't bite for this... it's obviously got an agenda to it, he's saying abortion is alright and that the supreme court are assholes who are making idealized rulings from inside their ivory tower etc.

i guess to me, the sign of good comedy is that it makes you laugh, and maybe makes you think, but definitely makes you laugh... but in this case, it doesn't make me laugh, even a little, because it's not actually funny, and when i think about it, it doesn't even make sense. it's like comedy of the absurd only without the funny part. whatever. i have to trust that this guy is hilarious, as i've heard so much praise of him here. but if this is an example of him being "funny", then i dunno...

Thank you, Intern_8033 - that was a nice read.

I thought it was interesting to read that "legislative compromises tend to be durable, since they bring a sense of resolution to divisive issues by balancing competing interests". It brought to mind the anti-segregation wording: "with all deliberate speed" (or something like that). Basically, it gave states the rights to drag their heels a bit integrating the schools and such. In fact, it caused such a hassle in Louisiana that the public school system was forever crushed by the "deliberate speed" in which they were 'integrated' (read: 'left to die while private schools flourished under a mostly white population')