WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

Good paying jobs are not a thing of the past, they are plentiful. All you have to do is consistently make good decisions and possess some drive.

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

Debt is the new employer.
I can imagine the square footage going up because, the little darlings are still living with mom and dad: unable to afford a life on their own.
Wages are stagnant to this day. Every man woman and child owes $29,000 on credit cards. That computes to a family of four owing $116,000.
Your list , while impressive , does not reflect the actuality of American life.
40Million people today live in poverty in this country.
They think they’re living in Conservatism but it’s poverty.
Where do you think the Billionaires got all their money ????
They got it from you .
How much better off would you have been if all of that money didn’t escape you.
And now that they have it, they don’t want to spend it because it will decrease the value of their garages filled with greenbacks.

son of witless

" Every man woman and child owes $29,000 on credit cards. " I don't.

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

You are akin to the typical mass shooter. You aren't satisfied with just taking yourself out, you must shoot at everyone who has earned a bit more than you in all aspects of life......just for the attention that you jealously crave.

Make today the day, it's as good as any!

JR-57 Loc: South Carolina

Wrong. Again.
Square footage has gone up and number of inhabitants has gone down.
In 1970 13.0% of the population was in poverty. In 2020 11.4% of the population was in poverty.
Debt is not an indicator of wealth or poverty. Debt is an indicator of poor choices. There isn't a finite amount of wealth in the world. You can go out and make wealth every single day. The rich obtaining more of it doesn't mean there's less left over for you and I.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

elledee

Why not use birth control so we don't need a******n

Wildlandfirefighter

Absolutely agree with you. The two tribe system ain't working worth a crap these days. Lets get rid of all the dead weight in DC and get some people in there that are willing to work together for the common good. Far left and far right need to get dumped, we need more people in the middle that are there to work together and get something done for their constituents, not doing the work of big money.

Peoples United needs to get trashed as well. It has not been helpful at all.

Wildlandfirefighter

Did you happen to read Thomas' concurring document on the Row/Wade overturn?

You far right clowns on Opp are very good at spewing crap without taking the time to check to see if you are clueless or not. That results in you all being really clueless A LOT!

This is just another good example. If you had spent two minutes researching online you would have been able to find the following:

"Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a concurring opinion released on Friday that the Supreme Court “should reconsider” its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

The sweeping suggestion from the current court’s longest-serving justice came in the concurring opinion he authored in response to the court’s ruling revoking the constitutional right to a******n, also released on Friday.

In his concurring opinion, Thomas — an appointee of President George H.W. Bush — wrote that the justices “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” — referring to three cases having to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf (its on page

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/al-franken-clarence-thomas-supreme-court-roe-v-wade-a******n

From the Supreme Court Document:
The resolution of this case is thus straightforward. Because the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to a******n. The Court today declines to disturb substantive due pro-
cess jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain con-traceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Oberge-fell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex mar-riage), are not at issue. The Court’s a******n cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDon-ald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree
that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be under-stood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern a******n.” Ante, at 66.

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Amdt.
——————
*Griswold v. Connecticut purported not to rely on the Due Process Clause, but rather reasoned “that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights”—including rights enumerated in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth,
and Ninth Amendments—“have penumbras, formed by emanations,” that create “zones of privacy.” 381 U. S., at 484. Since Griswold, the Court, perhaps recognizing the facial absurdity of Griswold’s penumbral argument, has characterized the decision as one rooted in substantive due process. See, e.g., Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644, 663 (2015); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720 (1997).

bggamers Loc: georgia

Their not that's sloe Joe slinging his BS and starting a panic some of the other Dems saying the same thing also NOW their going to out law gay marriage and these dumb asses fall for this every time.Their not happy if their not hysterical

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

You are correct. I screwed up, and totally missed the reference to contraception. I apologize for sounding off without doing due diligence, and I thank you for pointing out and explaining the source.
Having said that, I also want to add that I AGREE with what Justice Thomas said. Every single SCOTUS ruling from the past, that was based on 'implications' and 'assumptions' in the Constitution is suspect, and should be reexamined if and when it is challenged in court. Congress must be willing to actually DO their job, and pass laws and stop relying on SCOTUS and EOs while they spend their time campaigning and avoiding making too many constituents mad.
I will also say that the right is not interested in ending anyone's right to buy and use contraceptives, or to tell people of different races they can not marry. And the only problem we on the right have with same sex 'marriage' is that it is not a marriage (give it a different name) and we do not accept it as normal. Nor should we have to. It falls under that nice and underused blanket of 'privacy', and 'live and let live'.

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

Probably a good idea. My wife sold me on getting “the pill” for my daughters because it was good for their complexion. Naive but effective.

JR-57 Loc: South Carolina

Food for thought.

I wasn’t advocating a medical a******n as the only option for rape victims. Surgical a******n should also be an option, to a point. That allows the victim ample time to decide. I don’t agree with partial birth a******ns.

If the incest victim isn’t in a position to take advantage of the medical a******n, they certainly wouldn’t be in a position to take advantage of a surgical a******n.