1 Kings 11:1-3
King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.
Discuss.
Sounds like the Porn I watched last night. The Guy with the big dick was fucking everything under the sun. Big Dick fucked Whiteboyassite, Blackboyassite, Tightassite, Whiteboymouthite, Blackboymouthite, and Yourmouthandassite.
A rich king with 700 wives and 300 mistresses is a palimony lawyer’s dream come true.
King Solomon was known for his wisdom. Solomon asked god for wisdom and god granted his wish. How wise is it to have 700 wives and 300 on the side? Solomon got more ass than a toilet seat. Not sure how wise he really was given how many women he had to please. Guess he never heard the saying, “Hell hath no fury like a women scorned.”
@3 Royal Wives and Concubines Union, Local No. 1, need I say more?
The stakes in the coming Supreme Court fight are coming into clearer focus; most people on both sides seem to agree that overturning Roe v. Wade would make abortion illegal in “some” states, and even Trump doesn’t expect a decision resulting in a nationwide abortion ban:
“Trump said Sunday that … abortion rights ‘could very well end up’ being determined on a state-by-state basis after his pick is confirmed.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democratic-senator-warns-colleagues-career-ending-supreme-court-vote-n888086
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Roe v. Wade only prevents states from banning abortion; it doesn’t require them to. A conservative SCOTUS majority wouldn’t have with stop at retracting the constitutional right to abortion created by Roe v. Wade, and Right-to-Lifers wouldn’t be satisfied with that because people could still get abortions in states where ti’s legal. Nothing prevents a conservative-dominated Court from ruling that “right to life” is a constitutional right, which would overturn state laws allowing abortion and make abortion illegal in all 50 states, and I would be surprised if an anti-abortion Court majority didn’t go there. Maybe not in the first set of decisions, if they didn’t have that exact issue in front of them, but strong odds they would eventually get there. Otherwise, you would see abortion resorts and spas proliferating in the “legal” states.
We don’t know anything about the stabber yet, but I suspect this is a domestic, maybe a resident with beefs against his neighbors, and not a hate crime. An alt-right nutjob would have used a gun.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/idaho-stabbing-9-injured-at-boise-apartment-complex-by-knife-wielding-suspect/
Update: Police have ID’d the suspect as a “temporary resident at the apartment complex [who] was asked to leave Friday.” Six of the victims are children.
https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article214149584.html
Roe V. Wade is a red herring! I wonder how many here realize that abortion was legal in many states well before Roe V. Wade? There is NOTHING about repeal of Roe V. Wade that would make abortion illegal – laws on the books in WA, CA, OR, NY, and many others would still hold.
But I get it, hard-core fascists/socialists here need SOMETHING to rally around, since they are morally and intellectually bankrupt of any ideas other than “take from those people and give to ME!”
Roger Rabbit spewed:
“Nothing prevents a conservative-dominated Court from ruling that “right to life” is a constitutional right,”
Read these words: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It’s only the reason the USA was founded… The right to life, right there!
@8 So you’re revising #7 and saying abortion should be illegal in Washington, too? Looks like it.
I don’t care what they do in South Carolina, Alabama, Texas, or Tennessee. If hillbilly women want to go through life illiterate, barefoot, and pregnant, that’s their problem.
For that matter, I don’t care all that much about the abortion half of Roe v. Wade, although I think outlawing abortion everywhere would create problems.
My concern is rightwing justices might shitcan our privacy rights, too. That’s a realistic possibility if they get unchecked control of the court, because it’s already been repeatedly demonstrated that conservatives — notwithstanding all their empty bleating about “freedom” — can’t be trusted with our personal liberties.
When conservatives talk about “freedom,” they’re talking about freedom to bombard you with telemarketing scams, to search your home and cars and computers without a warrant for evidence of liberal sympathies, to go through your master bathroom cabinets and bedroom dresser drawers looking for condoms, to peer through your windows at who you’re having sex with, and to make your kids sit through the religious indoctrination of their choice.
” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Uh… This is not a law on the books. And “Brave New World” talked about a form of “pursuit of happiness” – maybe you should take some?
“take from those people and give to ME!”
This is not taking?
Steve is exactly right: dumb as a stump.
“It’s only the reason the USA was founded… The right to life”
LOL! What ever happened to taxation without representation is tyranny?
Geebus, were the founders so obsessed with zygotes as well?
Dumb as a stump..
@10 Well yeah, you have to be dumb as a stump to be a Republican, it’s an occupational requirement.
@11 The dumbass @8 overlooked this one:
“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
Doesn’t look to me like the Founders’ #1 priority was staying alive. In fact, they were already saying their goodbye prayers.
@8 “It’s only the reason the USA was founded… The right to life, right there!”
Holy crap, never thought someone would make Shortbus look like a Rhodes Scholar but dumbfuck Dan has done it.
If you want to be such a “textualist” (like that sage SCOTUS Justice Thomas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas), the words, “that all men are created equal,,…” they were talking about men, not women and since Roe v. Wade is a women’s health issue, the Declaration of Independence has no bearing on the “right to life” as a reproductive matter. Taking into account the words at the time it was written, women had little standing in society. http://www.womenhistoryblog.co.....ution.html
So your argument that the DOI set the legal precedent for the “right to light” is pure fantasy on your part.
@13 When they wrote, “All men are created equal,” what they meant was, “All men are created equal except slaves and Indians.”
@14
That is probably the case, but the point is, it had not a damn thing to do with women and certainly not women’s reproductive rights as Dumbfuck Dan is trying to assert.
In fact, the second link @13 contains dialog between Abigail and John Adams, in which Abigail pleads with John to improve women’s standing:
“I long to hear that you have declared an independency – and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation”
It also has a reply from John Adams that pretty much puts men in their place and women in theirs:
“Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems. Although they are in full Force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not exert our Power in its full Latitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject Us to the Despotism of the Petticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight.”
Mexico held a presidential election today, and voters elected the anti-Trump leftist by a wide margin.
@2 King Henry the Eighth would disagree. Solomon would disagree. King Louis would definitely disagree, and doubt many attorneys would touch any proceeding as divorce could be very simple….King turns around in a 360 and states I divorce thee three times.
After all this is the King who was going to cut a child in two, You really think attorneys would want to piss him off,,,and they would be called attorneys. Might even have to be rabbis.
@3 Hey Fidel Castro bedded 35,000 women. The Chinese Emperors all had harems and concubines. All of the kings in that part of the world had harems, and part of this was establishment of treaties with tribes, nations ect. The exception would be the Egyptian pharaoh who accepted wives, but there was an established rule that women of the Pharaohs household did not go to other nations. So There may be considerable exaggeration, or just maybe Solomon was also Pharaoh of Egypt or part of the household to have a Egyptian Princess.
@4: Mel Brooks: “It is good to be the King.”
@5 Conservatives and liberals are playing politics here. You are leaving out certain facts such as the fact Roe v Wade is covered by stare decisis, something generally important to conservative judges, now when judges get onto the court they have become more active, or inactive, more liberal or conservative. There is a lot of room for surprise. A conservative court could uphold Roe v Wade, though weaken some parts. Why some conservatives want to return to the messy situation pre Roe v Wade is beyond me. Maybe they have tea with the pope. Fortunately Catholic judges are supposed to put aside their religious belief when wrestling with this.
I think we should be more concerned that we get a judge who has a background in some areas of law that court is weak in. Like maybe public defender back ground, Intellectual property rights maybe. Gotta have a judge who stay awake during the arguments on those cases, Or able to politely keep his or her colleagues present.
Personally the Senate should generally confirm the Presidents choice with the least fuss particularly when that judge is already on the Federal bench. Even more so when they are on a appeals court as the Senate has already said ok to a Presidents pick twice already. If this judge is so horrible then an impeachment action should have been done by the house and removal by the Senate, be nice if Congress persons would do the whole job, and do appropriate actions on a judge one party feels should not be on the Supreme court, as frankly they do not approve the judge he or she should not be on the Federal bench at all.
Also it could be years before the court even takes up a case where it could do away with Roe v Wade. And you know Congress really would have to act in some way to do away with Roe v Wade or strengthen it.
@6 It may also point out the weaknesses of gun control. That individuals who intend to do violence will do what economists say people do when dealing with rising prices…they substitute. The United Kingdom has few deaths or crime from fire arms, but stabbings are common. and one of more common methods of murder in the UK.
@7 It was legal in 4 states and had just become legal in New York and by referendum in Washington state, guess we will see something in the future on the ballot if it gets overturned. It was illegal in 30 states, and legal in the remaining states with restrictions.
And the decision was based on a right to privacy, and dealt with the underlying real issue of the day of women and families with means could get an abortion while poor women often could not. Or out of desperation would turn to the back alley.
@8 The court has struggled with stating when life begins. There is nothing in the Constitution that states when life starts, I propose we adopt the Polynesian standard and a baby has no right to life until 1 or even 2 years old and infanticide is normal and required for the fabric of America.
@8 The Supreme court does not base decisions on the Declaration of Independence.
The document preamble important to the court is
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The common law is of more importance to the court than the Declaration of Independence. Under the common law life does not start until birth therefore a fetus unalienable right to life, and infants cannot pursue happiness, and cannot enjoy liberty, in fact any gentleman or gentlewoman of the enlightenment would find your suggestions absurd as infants are not persons, and cannot be as that would be inimical to their well being.
@9 Of course the fact the number of abortions is now at or below the number of abortions performed when Roe v Wade allowed abortion. Abd the trend has been fewer abortions due to the pill and the morning after pill that even Hillbilly women seems to have taken a liking too. Odd how some conservative politicians suddenly like abortion when their interests are involved. Maybe with the spouse, mistress or daughter, and it suddenly becomes a private issue when the news hounds get wind of something.
@14
Well they were writing to King George who definitely had a problem with the concept of anyone being equal to him.
@16 It is normal for Mexican politicians of all parties to say unflattering thing of the President of El Norte, even when everyone knows once elected they will be very friendly, no Mexican politician wants to look like a lap dog of the President.
Guess you will be among the Democrats saying Trump lost Mexico to communism, it is shocking this horrible communist take over…We must d something. We demand President Trump do something about this, Well geography and personality may grant your wishes. Dovetails right into that issue of Mexico being unable to police its borders, and them being not so nice people, and communists now. Well our grandchildren could get another great holiday like Cinco de Mayo. Will the liberation take less time than General Scott’s invasion.
24,
The overwhelming majority of abortions today are self-administered in private, at home by taking pills following a brief visit to an office or clinic.
Womb worshiping trailerbillies like you* and Doctor Dumbfuck hate that abortion is now generally safe, uncomplicated, and entirely private. How can you Trump voters shame all the dirty sluts if you don’t really know who they are? I’ll give you trolls a hint: the dirty sluts are everywhere! They are your doctors, your wives, your bosses, your neighbors, your landlords, your aunts, your letter carriers, your sisters, and your Senators. They are all around you right under your stupid noses. They are bringing home pills in the bottom of their purses and giving themselves abortions in the kitchen while you trailerbillies stare glassy-eyed at Fox News.
Hey Shortbus:
Look up!
Look down!
Look at my thumb!
…
*Don’t bother protesting a denial. You support them. You are on their team. Your personal stance is of no consequence so long as you stand alongside and support the Trumpublican Jihad. You made your choice. You have to live with it forever.
@20 “Personally the Senate should generally confirm the Presidents choice with the least fuss particularly when that judge is already on the Federal bench. Even more so when they are on a appeals court as the Senate has already said ok to a Presidents pick twice already.”
Ever heard of Merrick Garland?
The Senate didn’t, so now it’s necessary to protect Roe v. Wade from theocrats undeterred by stare decisis.
Btw, where did you learn that big word? You don’t impress me as someone having any legal education.
@20 “Congress really would have to act in some way to do away with Roe v Wade or strengthen it”
Nope. The action is in legislatures. You should know this because GOP state legislators have been thumbing their noses at Roe v. Wade for years, intentionally violating their constituents’ constitutional rights, as willful provocations drawn to get them another shot at Roe v. Wade in SCOTUS. These futile cases have wasted untold amounts of judges’ time and uncountable sums of taxpayer money. Where is the outrage over that from “fiscally prudent” conservatives?
@21 The U.S. murder rate is over four times U.K.’s and higher than Somalia’s. Countries like U.K. and New Zealand with strict gun laws have much lower homicide rates than we do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
And gun murders far outnumber fatal stabbings.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
@8 & @22 – By way of clarification, I used the term “right to life” in #5 in specific reference to the Right-To-Life movement’s goal of banning abortions, and the phrase has no broader meaning in that comment. That’s why I put it in quote marks.
My point was that SCOTUS could go beyond overturning Roe v. Wade, which prevents states from prohibiting abortion, and confer on fetuses a constitutional right to be born, which would prevent states from legalizing abortion.
@23 “life does not start until birth therefore a fetus unalienable right to life, and infants cannot pursue happiness, and cannot enjoy liberty”
That is the ultimate question …
Right-To-Lifers don’t agree with this, and want to reverse the Supreme Court’s present position on this point. The easiest way is by stuffing the Court with anti-abortion justices. The hardest way is by amending the Constitutional. They don’t really care very much how they get there; they’ll try anything that might work, but obviously they see the Court as their best bet and have focused their resources there and meanwhile using harassing tactics to shut down abortion clinics.
@24 You can be absolutely certain that if abortion becomes illegal in the United States again, Republican politicians will keep fucking their mistresses, and when they get pregnant, will ship them out of country for abortions.
Presumably Ireland would see an uptick in tourism.
@28
Shortbus maybe finally got the hang of ‘the google’. Probably found a good legal dictionary like this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis
or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_legal_terms