I consider myself to be a Lefty Libertarian if you are asking about my political leanings. Basically, I think that government should mind their own fucking business about things that don't concern them, like crawling up a woman's vagina and planting a flag, but at the same time I think that there is an inherent responsibility to look out for our fellow human beings and their welfare.
Feeding people is much more economical than beating them down with police truncheons but that's just the practical part of my nature.

@Alienbeing What's your point? Did you know 70% of Americans supported Roe v Wade? The other 30% are zealots who only care about babies when their zygotes. Once they're born? Fuck em. In other words, piece of shit Republicans. Democrat talking points my ass!

@barjoe You asked what was my point and then proceed to go on a rant about abortion as if you "knew" my point...... you did not.

My point was that the article referenced wrongly assumes the Roe V Wade decision will lead to certain other decisions that even Alito specifically says will not follow.

HE WAS citing Democratic talking points whether you recognize it or not.

@SnowyOwl I agree the government has no place telling us what we can or cannot do with our bodies.

As for being a "Lefty Libertarian"...... that phrase seems self contradictory.

@Alienbeing Alito just is a flat out liar. Justice Uncle Thomas outlined it precisely. In case you want to call that a Democrat Talking Point, I'll post a ridiculously partisan Republican source. [foxnews.com]

@barjoe Your reply assumes FAR too much. I am not a Republican, and I am sure they have moronic talking points also. Additionally, FOX, MSNBC and CNN are ALL poor news sources and tend to slant news either left or right.

However none of the above (or your reply) negate that fact that the article was basically Democrat talking points. I've seen many of your posts. You are an intelligent person, you should be easily able to recognize spin.

@Alienbeing It would make more sense to you, if you were smarter. Think outside the box a bit more, it's a very big universe and you seem to belong somewhere else in it, other than on planet Earth. Have a Super Sparkly Day.

@Alienbeing I'm only intelligent compared to the stupid people. I'm a little upset about how austere the courts rulings are and the fact that Clarence Thomas is talking about reinstating sodomy laws (Lawrence), nullifying some gay marriages (Obergefell) and laws against contraception (Griswold) which will lead to tripling abortions. Of course he omitted Loving v VA, it could nullify his marriage. Sen Braun (R-IN) said that for him. At this point in my life I'm a centrist Democrat. The Republican party no longer has a place for moderates. The Democrats shouldn't make the same mistake and not leave room for centrists like myself. Today they think I'm liberal. I'm not. Dammit today these fuckers would call Reagan a lib

@SnowyOwl I'm sure I am at least as intelligent as you think you are, and probably have more education. You can now continue to pat yourself on the back.

@SnowyOwl, @barjoe Clarence Thomas and Alito are very unique (in a bad way) about how they view the Constitution and law in general.

I like your comments regarding both major parties. For a long time I thought both major political parties do little except pander to their extremes.

@Alienbeing Joe Biden ran as a centrist and that's how he won. His big mistake is caving in to everything the left tells him to. They have some popular ideas but they have some unpopular ideas as well. If Joe Biden had governed as a centrist, which is what he was elected as, his approval rating would be much higher.

@barjoe I agree.

@Alienbeing That being said, I think Roe v Wade, Birth Control, Consenting Adults, Marriage Equally are all popular and shouldn't have been overturned. Justice Uncle Thomas is a steaming pile of shit.

@barjoe I agree on all except Roe v Wade. By pushing abortion decisions to the States, the Court actually makes the decision more Democratic. If a State wants to say abortion is acceptable, OK. If they say it is not, that is said by the elected officials. Residents of each State do not have to agree with each other, except where a Right is clearly present. Whether any Right is clearly present or not is subject to debate. Debate is what Democracies do.

@Alienbeing I disagree. It's a personal decision should not be made by the state. Laws that put travel restrictions to not allow women to terminated pregnancies in another state. That is nothing more than totalitarianism. States Rights was used to justify slavery. This country won't be a democracy anymore and that will be in our lifetime. Thanks to Trump and the fucking Republicans. This Supreme court made the worst decisions since Dred Scott. The only hope for our country is if Alito and Thomas die soon.

@Alienbeing If you consider Libertarianism a bit deeper there is nothing contradictory about it, unless you have an American perspective on Libertarianism which is limited at best.

@barjoe I don't know what I said that you disagree with. A personal decision regarding one's body should not be the Federal Government's business, nor any travel. If individual States forbid abortion, or anything else, that is done by elected representatives of the people of that State, and that is the personification of Democracy.

Our country is not, nor ever was a Democracy at the Federal level. We are a Republic. If we were a Federal Democracy each State would not have 2 Senators irrespective of population, nor would Constitutional Amendments require the Senate & House to approve with at least 66% approval AND then ratification of States with at least 66% ratifying. Just as a notation, even our Pledge of Alliegence says "....to the Flag and to the Republic for which it stands".

Last, note in my original reply I said States cannot pass laws "Residents of each State do not have to agree with each other, except where a Right is clearly present." Perhaps because n the original reply, because I mistyped "except" you didn't understand what I wanted to say. Slavery, and other Rights, already cannot be negated by any State law.

@SnowyOwl I don't know nor do I care how Canadians define "Libertarianism"; nor do I care what you think of how Americans define it. Citizens of the USA run our country, and your approval is neither necessary, or sought.

@Alienbeing United States may not be a purist democracy but it is, up to this point a democracy.

@Alienbeing So long as my dual citizen children live in the sad excuse for a democracy that Amerikka has become, I will have a say. If you're supposed to be an example of an intelligent Amerikkan then there is little hope for the future.

@barjoe There is no question that at the Federal level we are not, nor ever were, or ever intended to be a Democracy. At the State level, each State does operate as a Democracy.

@SnowyOwl Your feeble attempt to sound intelligent failed..... again>

@Alienbeing United States is a representative democracy with free elections.

@barjoe ROFLMAO, you are either the court jester or just a common fool then.

@Snowball Who the fuck are you talking to? Random stranger who I didn't address. Go to church and pray to your fictitious Jesus you stupid assramming unclefucker.

@barjoe How does the Electoral College, the Senate (2 Senators irrespective of population) square with a "representative democracy"?

@Alienbeing How is a parliamentary democracy pure democracy either? The fact that a bogus state like Wyoming has the same representation as Texas or California is bullshit, I agree. The fact the electoral college can help a piece of human excrement like Donald Fuckity Fuck Trump, try to steal an election is bullshit too. Rutherford B Hayes Stole An Election In 1885. United States is a flawed democracy. BTW That Snowball guy can kiss my fucking ass.

@barjoe Do confuse the subject by citing another form of Governement. I am only referring to OUR country and OUR Constitution. Comparing our Constitution or form of Government to any other form is totally irrelevant.

Wyoming's Senate Representation is not bullshit, it is a Constitutional guarantee, and just one of the exact examples that we are not a Democracy at the Federal level. The same is true of the Electoral College, and the process needed to amend our Constitution.

Whether Trump is an asshole or not (I agree he is) also has no bearing on whether or not we are a Republic, not a Democracy.

At our founding, the smaller State were terrified that the larger States would effectivly void smaller State desires. As a result of this, we were formed as a Republic, NOT a Democracy to assure the smaller States that a simple majority could not run rough shod over lesser States.

It is not a question about whether or not we are a "pure" Democracy, it is a question that we were purposly formed (at the Federal level) not to be a Democracy.

As for @Snowball, he is a proven jerk who may have fled to Canada to avoid the previous draft, if not hat, certainly fo some other nefarious reason.

@Alienbeing Do we not have elections which determine who serves? I know how the electoral college works okay! We are a democratic republic, a form of democracy.

@barjoe Your refusal to recognize the facts I presented do not change reality. Of course we have free elections, and just how does the Electoral College treat those elections?

Remember I amo only referring to Federal Government.

@Alienbeing Facts? Free and fair elections. A form of democracy. The electoral college hasn't ignore a state vote (short of random rogue lunatic electors) since 1885. It does allow for minority rule. Bush, Trump are two I can think of where opponent got over 50% of the national total, and lost. US Senate is really a problem because they select SCOTUS. For Wyoming with barely ½ million people to have same representation as state of California with 40 million people is the worst flaw in American democracy.

@barjoe As you said, "It does allow for minority rule" True, and that is proof that at the Federal level we are not a Democracy. Additionally your complaint about the composition of the Senate is additional proo of the non-democratic form of our Federal Government.

I am curious (not that is has any bearing on this discussion) but what have you got against Wyoming? I'd say the N. Dakota, S. Dakota combo is more egregious because their combined small population yields twice as much Senate voting power than California, or NY, or virtually all other States.

@Alienbeing Same with a parliamentary democracy which I brought up because that stupid Snowball guy is a fucking Canadian. I brought up Wyoming because my city has 3x as many people and metro area 15x. And that big parcel of land with no people has two piece of shit Republican senators with immense power. You have a point about the Dakotas. By rights some states should have 5 senators some only one. California would have some Republican senators in that system by the way. Without electoral college, presidential candidates would campaign in all 50 states. Basically Dems don't bother with Texas and GOP doesn't fight in California. The 2 biggest states are an after thought. So tell me. What major country on the planet has pure democracy with honest, free federal elections?

@barjoe Your point about CA and TX being basically ignored by candidates is a good point. It sort of negates a large portion of voters I never had a desire to study the forms of Government various countries had or have, and as such I don't know if a pure democracy exists anywhere.

However whether one does exist or not in no way changes the fact that we are not a Democracy at the Federal level.

@Alienbeing So you think there is no such thing as democracy. We agree to disagree.

@barjoe Ummm I didn't say that. I said "I don't know if a pure democracy exists anywhere" Not knowing does not equal "one does not exist".

@Alienbeing My question was: What major country...?

@barjoe My reply is still I don't know because I never studied the governmental structures of other countries.

@Alienbeing Major countries.

Yes, at least that is how she has looked in the videos I have followed for the past few years. Not a big one for makeup and fancy hairdos but she is followed for her knowledge and common sense perspective, not her looks.

@SnowyOwl I nearly always look at her posts.

@racocn8 She has an interesting perspective on current events from a historic viewpoint but if you almost always follow her posts then why would you comment on her looks?

@SnowyOwl I haven't seen her picture with the posts that display her blog. I only meant that I gained a face to go with the name, by no means commenting on her looks.