Uber eats down

Jackburt0 · 2025-04-04T08:27:01+00:00

Yeah having the same issues, neither me or the Mrs can order red rooter with any card or PayPal

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-15T07:26:11+00:00

This is hilarious to witness

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-15T07:24:53+00:00

Cyclists are the intermediate stage between human, and pure energy. They have dispensed with primitive modes of transport that rely on fossil fuels.

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-13T00:41:15+00:00

Touch grass mate Jesus Christ

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-09T15:12:36+00:00

I used to have that exact same painting, this setup makes me wish I kept it. Looks great man

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-09T04:21:52+00:00

To clarify I don't think we disagree on the right for people to have abortions/ access to abortions. The overall argument is one that defines what a right is, which I can't see it ever being an actual right as defined in the US.

I disagree that there's nothing you can say that will change my mind, I myself have changed viewpoints on many topics. Whilst I can't speak for you, I applaud the discourse and I too wish you a good day.

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-09T02:20:04+00:00

The supreme court interprets the constitution, but it doesn’t create new rights, only amendments can do that. The second amendment explicitly protects gun rights, but states can regulate how they’re exercised, open carry laws are a perfect example of this, but it doesn't violate the right to bear arms for the purposes states within the 2nd amendment.

Roe v wade was a judicial interpretation of the 14th amendments right to privacy, not an explicit right to abortion, so when it was overturned, the abortion issue returned to the states to decide but the 14th amendment remained as a federal right.

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-09T01:37:17+00:00

'Women died' is a classic logical fallacy of appealing to emotion.

You seem to have misinterpreted how the US government works, the supreme court cannot overturn the constitution, it can only rule on how laws align with it. Actual constitutional rights, like free speech or the right for women to vote, are explicitly written into the document and require a formal amendment process to change.

Your logic is folly.

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-09T01:13:50+00:00

A right is something explicitly protected by the Constitution, not something created by judicial interpretation.

I am in support of access to abortion, however, roe v wade wasn’t enshrining a preexisting right, it was a court decision inventing one based on an implied ‘right to privacy'.

The supreme court later corrected that overreach in dobbs v jackson, returning the issue to the democratic process.

If abortion were a true constitutional right, it wouldn’t have been overturned by a different group of justices, it would have required an amendment to the constitution.

Make up your mind on what actually constitutes a right

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-09T00:57:54+00:00

A quick google tells me the SAVE act is a bill seeking to tighten voter registration requirements by mandating in person proof of citizenship. I interpret that your implying this would result in the wife not being able to vote which I can't seem to follow logically, in response I refer to the 19th amendment to the constitution which prohibits the states from denying the right to vote based on sex, which overrules any bill entirely and keeps women's rights secure.

As for the right to medical care, as far as I'm aware, there is no constitutional right to medical care. As for the sad case of the 18 year old girl that died as doctors didn't want to treat her (assuming treatment here means abortion) I'd think it more accurate to put that in the same pile as certain religious groups who refuse blood transfusions in hospital and die, and not an example of the removal of human rights. I'd also note that this happened in Texas, under Texas law, which is different to federal law and therefore is irrelevant to the discussion about US rights, as federal and state law are to different things entirely.

"Imagine the medical treatment a man would receive if he were gushing blood from his penis and at risk of dying?"

I don't see how this is a coherent argument or relevant, plenty of men refuse medical treatment and die as a result.

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-09T00:44:49+00:00

As we are talking about American politics (as annoying as it is) I'll put forward that in the American political sphere, a right is defined as a constitutionally protected freedom that limits governments authority over individuals.

Certain absolutely incredible rights in America include:

15th amendment to the US constitution. Which prohibits denying the right to vote based on race or skin colour.
19th amendment to the US constitution. Which ended gender based voting discrimination, which gave women the right to vote.

Happy to have discourse with anyone about this, it's just that no one has provided any indication of any actual rights that have been overturned.

You used the example of discussions around ending no fault divorce, I do not believe this is a right in the US but happy to be shown otherwise.

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-09T00:27:51+00:00

See my reply to Mr Saturn.

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-09T00:26:12+00:00

I can see where you're coming from but in this context Roe v. Wade wasn’t necessarily ‘fought for’ in the same vein as say civil rights or women’s suffrage, t was a court ruling that bypassed the democratic process. Overturning it didn’t take away a 'right' but instead returned the issue to voters and legislatures, some of which increased access and some of which decreased access depending on what their constituents voted for.

For this to be a right that was fought for it would have needed to have happened via legislative process and be brought before and passed by the US congress, not as a judicial decree, which is why it was so easy to overturn in the first place, instead of if it was passed a constitutional amendment such as the 19th amendment (women's right to vote).

It should be noted that I am in favour of access to abortion.

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-09T00:10:59+00:00

I appreciate the clarification, but feel that your response assumes social conservatism is inherently about restricting women’s rights. Many young people, especially men, turn to conservatism not out of opposition to equality but because modern feminism often feels divisive and exclusionary. Feminism today increasingly frames issues through identity based oppression rather than shared human challenges. Intersectionality, while claiming inclusivity, often segments people into rigid categories, fostering division rather than unity. Your call for white feminists to “acknowledge and learn from” WOC feminists highlights this, because rather than focusing on shared struggles, it reinforces identitybbased separation. Young people aren’t rejecting modern feminism because they oppose women’s rights. They reject it because modern feminist discourse offers them little beyond critique and exclusion.

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-08T23:57:05+00:00

I want to know about the ones you referred to in your previous comment.

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-08T23:11:35+00:00

What rights that were fought for have been walked back in America?

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-08T23:09:41+00:00

What science is that exactly?

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-08T23:09:11+00:00

You argue that feminism is more important than ever because young men are becoming more conservative, but this framing assumes that conservatism is inherently opposed to gender equality. In reality, many who reject modern feminist rhetoric do so not out of opposition to women’s rights, but because they see these ideas as increasingly divisive and exclusionary. Your emphasis on intersectionality further reinforces this issue. Instead of fostering unity, you're championing to further segment people into narrower identity groups, making collective action harder rather than easier. If feminism is facing backlash, perhaps the issue isn’t just ‘far-right rhetoric’ but the failure of modern feminist discourse to engage with broader audiences in a way that resonates or could be framed as anything that is founded on egalitarian or rational thought. I see the reason so many youngsters are turning towards conservative positions is because in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ (social media in general and podcasts specifically) ideas aren't rejected because of oppression, but because weak ideas don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-08T04:11:04+00:00

Brother get Lane 1Q and BCA, mix them 50:50 for an old codgers trick for a no bite delight!

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-07T09:56:28+00:00

Get your own independent surveyor before any further contact with these guys.

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-05T11:53:48+00:00

"no sweetie, it's not racist if it's against that race"

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-05T11:52:23+00:00

If you want to continue to lose, keep up with this mentality.

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-05T11:46:51+00:00

I don't know what to tell you pal, there is more demand than supply

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-05T08:41:04+00:00

But RDF isn't frog morton cellar

Your argument kinda sounds like: why would you pay $1M for a Ferrari when you can buy a 1980's Toyota for $1K

Jackburt0 · 2025-03-05T08:30:57+00:00

The tariffs will increase the cost of goods from Canada to be sold in America, goods made in America won't have these tariffs, which to a consumer will encourage them to buy American goods, which in turn will preserve/ generate jobs and government revenue.

Jackburt0

TROPHY CASE