Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Really think about this: We have a Q believer on the SCOTUS
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 49
| visibility 595

Really think about this: We have a Q believer on the SCOTUS


Jul 1, 2022, 8:53 AM

We're all ######

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/justice-thomas-cites-debunked-claim-covid-vaccines-are-made-cells-abor-rcna36156


military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

We've come full circle: Elon Musk has entered the convo!


Jul 1, 2022, 9:00 AM

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1542851043754512384?s=20&t=nN4hnDpeTu5sfXgFJ1SbGQ

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Really think about this: We have a Q believer on the SCOTUS


Jul 1, 2022, 9:16 AM

Thomas is technically incorrect, but the 4th paragraph reveals there is a bit of nuance involved. Cells derived from fetal tissue from approximately 50 yrs ago were used in the R&D of the vaccines.

To some, that alone is a moral dilemma. Not me.Labeling Thomas as a Q believer is also highly improbable.

I suspect none of the justices are as well informed on a host of issues as they should be.

Sotomayor recently stubbed her toe on an unrelated matter.

Thomas was wrong technically, but he’s not a simpleton.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

That’s not nuance, it’s at best a stunning


Jul 1, 2022, 11:33 AM

lack of comprehension, at worst he’s being intentionally deceptive to promote his religious fundamentalism.

Remember way back when err’body use to think religious fundamentalists we’re whackos? Yeah, me too.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Everyone I don’t like is Q!


Jul 1, 2022, 9:17 AM

So pathetic.

Also, the claims were not debunked. Each individual dose doesn’t use the cells, but the research process did and does.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Everyone I don’t like is Q!


Jul 1, 2022, 9:40 AM

Actually I owe you an apology. I thought you were a Q...mostly because you were big into wonky conspiracy theories and never seemed to meet a disinformation article you didn't like, and even when I called you a QAnon you'd never refute their core beliefs. Then I saw your little exchange the other day with NJDEV - who is indeed an unabashed Q - and I actually saw the distinction: while you are indeed a right-wing conspiracy theorist nutjob who is awaiting your chance to murder us all...you are not actually a QAnon, you're a Boogaloo accelerationist.

And yes, I'm now aware there's a difference. You Boogs are more a Survivalist club of anti-establishment anarchists who want to torch the world and then live in your post-Apocalyptic utopia, and there's not this Heaven's Gate religious-cult aspect to your worldview and you do not rely on divinely-inspired data drops that originate on a kiddie p()rn website, where the site admin is playing Wizard of Oz and is actually the Man Behind The Curtain to his ever-credulous flock. Nope. Not you. You just think all gubmints are Communist, all rules are Communist, and as long as you've got your guns and your canned Spam and you can shoot whoever you like because, you know, Muh Freedom, you're good with whatever comes next.

So again: apologies. I'll never call you a Q again. You are not that variety of nutjob.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


So much projection, lol***


Jul 1, 2022, 12:30 PM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Really think about this: We have a Q believer on the SCOTUS


Jul 1, 2022, 9:18 AM

He is still pissed about the pubes on his coke.

Clarence "I'll cut yo ###" Thomas

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Really think about this: We have a Q believer on the SCOTUS


Jul 1, 2022, 11:46 AM

30 years since we all learned about that famous pube. Time flies.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


"Q is back". Where do I go to see this oracle's prophesies?


Jul 1, 2022, 9:20 AM

Seriously, I have never gone down this rabbit trail but am curious to see it firsthand.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg2016_nascar_champ.gif flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Hold up there....isn't he correct?....


Jul 1, 2022, 9:22 AM

I believe it is correct that COVID vaccines used fetal cell lines from aborted fetuses in testing of the vaccines.

Thomas said:

“on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.”

Is that not correct?

He didn't say that the vaccines CONTAINED cells from aborted fetuses.

The headline of the story is sensational and misleading IMO.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Words matter, fetal cells aren't aborted children.***


Jul 1, 2022, 9:29 AM



military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You're right...so read all of them...


Jul 1, 2022, 9:34 AM

"derived" from aborted fetuses. As far as I know, that's correct. The cell lines were derived from aborted fetuses.

And I'm not suggesting I have an issue with that, but rather that Thomas' statement is factual correct.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Children, not fetuses.


Jul 1, 2022, 9:54 AM

The bigger point is this is a conspiracy theory talking point.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I'm not sure what you're meaning...


Jul 1, 2022, 10:24 AM

children not fetuses. If you're saying he called them children and not fetuses...ok...still correct in my opinion. But certainly, him calling them children and not fetuses, doesn't make him a Q follower, right?

The bigger point is this is a conspiracy theory talking point.

No, I don't think that is a bigger point or at least that point isn't at all germane to what Thomas said or what the petitioners believed.

Are we in agreement that your initial statement regarding Thomas and "Q" was misplaced?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I'm trying to think about this in a vacuum.


Jul 1, 2022, 10:39 AM

It's tough because context matters, and he's both married to someone with absolutely insane beliefs and the recent court decisions have been questionable. Let's say it were a fictional judge that we know nothing about and this judge wrote a similar opinion stating that 19 people were fired for not taking the mandated vaccine on grounds that they believe Anakin Skywalker is the chosen one and has brought covid to bring balance to the force. Is it giving legitimacy to the belief by even having it in the opinion? Could they have found something and quoted it? Just like Thomas chose to use quotes for "stop the spread."

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

But wasn't Thomas just using the language from the....


Jul 1, 2022, 10:47 AM

petition, which is quite normal and common in judicial rulings?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Justice Thomas is correct.


Jul 1, 2022, 10:15 AM [ in reply to Hold up there....isn't he correct?.... ]

He's also being vague, whether deliberately or not. It's not the case that newly aborted fetuses are contributing to the vaccine. There are cloned cell lines that were developed decades ago from aborted fetal tissue (kidney tissue I read), and they keep replicating.

The reason why this is important is that basically no one has a sincerely held religious belief about this, because those same fetal cell lines are used in a zillion different applications that no one has any objection to.

So Thomas is being fairly accurate while also contributing to the general lack of appreciation of the facts.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Again he chose his words carefully.


Jul 1, 2022, 10:20 AM

"Aborted children" is very deliberate. Not only is a fetus not a child, but we don't even know if the cell cultures came from an abortion. Of the two lines, only one is confirmed to be from an abortion, the other could have just as easily been from a miscarriage.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

When he said "aborted children", he was stating what the


Jul 1, 2022, 10:27 AM

plaintiffs had stated.

"Not only is a fetus not a child" - curious, for you, at what point does a fetus become a child? Not trolling - just genuinely wondering what other people think.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


That's the million dollar question, which nobody can answer.


Jul 1, 2022, 11:26 AM

We have opinions all over the place, but there is no definitive answer. I think the vast majority of people would agree that at some point during pregnancy, the fetus becomes a child/person, so therefore it makes sense to pursue the debate and reach some kind of agreement, acknowledging that it's not perfect, for legal and moral purposes.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


Frankly, the only poor use of words here is you....


Jul 1, 2022, 10:31 AM [ in reply to Again he chose his words carefully. ]

you seem to have worked off of the article's headline and not the actual statement and then called him a Q believer.

I think your initial statement and accusation were WAY off base.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Again he chose his words carefully.


Jul 1, 2022, 10:46 AM [ in reply to Again he chose his words carefully. ]

Yes…that is an important distinction. Just wait until we get a case in front of the court which claims a fetus is a child from the moment of conception and has constitutional rights. You won’t find that in the constitution or in common law prior to the constitution, but it doesn’t mean this particular court won’t try.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Again he chose his words carefully.


Jul 1, 2022, 12:43 PM [ in reply to Again he chose his words carefully. ]

Of the two lines, only one is confirmed to be from an abortion, the other could have just as easily been from a miscarriage.

Do you have a link for that? I admit I don't know a whole lot about this, but my googling landed on random website number 73* that says both were aborted.


* https://www.science.org/content/article/abortion-opponents-protest-covid-19-vaccines-use-fetal-cells

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I don't see it like that....


Jul 1, 2022, 10:28 AM [ in reply to Justice Thomas is correct. ]

and just because someone might be more educated on how the COVID vaccine was tested versus how the chickenpox vaccine was tested 30+ years ago doesn't automatically invalidate their concerns/beliefs.

I think Thomas' wording was very accurate and not vague at all. If he had left out "developed" or "line" then you might have more of a point.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I don't see it like that....


Jul 1, 2022, 12:46 PM

just because someone might be more educated on how the COVID vaccine was tested versus how the chickenpox vaccine was tested 30+ years ago doesn't automatically invalidate their concerns/beliefs.

But it's more than just the chickenpox vaccine 30 years ago, isn't it? My understanding is that these cell lines are used for all sorts of stuff. I even saw something about their use in food development, but I haven't confirmed it.


I think Thomas' wording was very accurate and not vague at all. If he had left out "developed" or "line" then you might have more of a point.

I think a lot of people will be misled. I certainly was confused the first time I heard about it.

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Yeah, but you're kinda slow, right?...


Jul 1, 2022, 1:01 PM

:)

The point on consistency I'm making is that I suspect the petitioners didn't go looking to see how else these cell lines are used...they just saw/heard/know it is used in this application. While I would agree that they should know more about how they are used, the legal burden isn't on them to be consistent if they don't have knowledge of the other applications right?

[that is horribly worded]

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Hold up there....isn't he correct?....


Jul 1, 2022, 11:56 AM [ in reply to Hold up there....isn't he correct?.... ]

flow0440 said:

I believe it is correct that COVID vaccines used fetal cell lines from aborted fetuses in testing of the vaccines.

Thomas said:

“on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.”

Is that not correct?

He didn't say that the vaccines CONTAINED cells from aborted fetuses.

The headline of the story is sensational and misleading IMO.

Thanks for actually reading the dissent. The story was definitely misleading. Thomas indeed was essentially correct. One can condemn him if one chooses for using the word children instead of fetus, but after reading some of the dissent, this is a big nothing burger.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Really think about this: We have a Q believer on the SCOTUS


Jul 1, 2022, 9:48 AM

Thomas's wife Ginny is clearly a Q. She's reposted Q stuff all the time. Interestingly, this isn't Ginny's first go-around belonging to a cult.

https://www.newsweek.com/ginni-thomas-discusses-struggles-after-leaving-cult-resurfaced-video-1694324


flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


in fairness, should a husband be tarnished directly...


Jul 1, 2022, 9:53 AM

by what his wife believes?

I sure as heck hope not!

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

OK, how about this:


Jul 1, 2022, 10:01 AM

Clarence Thomas was the only Supreme Court Justice who approved of former President Trump's demand to injunct documents requested by the House Select Committee investigating the U.S. Capitol attack of January 6.

Now, maybe it was because he was the only principled, righteous Justice of the 9 who understands that the J6 committee is a sham. Or, maybe he just didn't want his wife's text messages with Mark Meadows and others to be revealed.

He should be impeached for that alone.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-19b.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I strongly disagree...


Jul 1, 2022, 10:46 AM

that case/order was a lot more complicated than you seem to be indicating. It had to do with executive privilege of a past President without the current President's support and the passing of the "Nixon" test, etc...

I think saying Thomas voted to grant the application just so his wife's texts wouldn't be made public is a HUGE stretch and certainly not sustainable to impeach a sitting justice.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You're correct that it would be nearly impossible to prove


Jul 1, 2022, 10:58 AM

since he could offer 37 other flimsy reasons for dissent, but calling it a stretch when he was the only one of 6 very similarly-minded justices who voted to approve the injunction demand is...suspicious, at best.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-19b.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Maybe...I'm not sure how the voting works....


Jul 1, 2022, 11:08 AM

don't the justices know how the others are voting. In other words, if he was voting that way only to protect his wife, why would he have exposed himself if he knew it wouldn't matter?

I don't think you can dismiss his objections as flimsy without knowing them. Like I said...it wasn't that simple of a decision.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

When it endangers a democracy


Jul 1, 2022, 12:04 PM [ in reply to in fairness, should a husband be tarnished directly... ]

H311 YES!!!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So we should assume he agrees with his wife on everything...


Jul 1, 2022, 12:34 PM

because he's in an important position?

Do you agree with your wife on politics? I sure as heck don't a lot of the time.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

My wife is not trying to subvert our democracy.


Jul 1, 2022, 1:20 PM

This is a lot more than a difference of opinion between husband and wife, that’s severely minimizing it. She is actively trying to overturn an election and he is complicit. Prior to the last administration No supreme would’ve stayed on the court with this type of crap going on in his house. That would’ve had the sense to end the nonsense or step down out of duty to not sully the court.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

How in the world is he complicit?***


Jul 1, 2022, 1:37 PM



badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

She’s doing everything she can to overthrow a free and fair


Jul 1, 2022, 1:52 PM

election last year, you don’t think that conversation came up at the dinner table? He should’ve said, Honey, you can’t be involved in this nonsense but he’s said nothing. He failed to recuse himself from the J6 rulings, his complicit. He ruled on a case where he had a clear conflict of interest. If he didn’t have the respect enough for the court to resign he should have his butt thrown so far off the bench that he doesn’t hit ground til he’s in Virginia.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

How do you know what he's said to his wife?....


Jul 1, 2022, 2:04 PM

you're reaching big time.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Are you phuggin kidding me? He’s been married to


Jul 1, 2022, 2:20 PM

Ginny for a long time, they talk. Don’t give me that BS that it doesn’t get discussed, if you disagree you know nothing about marriage. If I was Clarence last year, I’d have told her to cut that shid out.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I don't recall saying it wasn't discussed...


Jul 1, 2022, 2:23 PM

YOU said "He should’ve said, Honey, you can’t be involved in this nonsense but he’s said nothing."

My point is that you have no idea what he said...right? You're just making wild assumptions, right?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You’re playing dumb on this. He should’ve


Jul 1, 2022, 2:35 PM

ended her involvement if he wanted to preserve his and the court’s reputation. If not, he should’ve had the decency to step down.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So we're in agreement you don't know what he said to...


Jul 1, 2022, 3:46 PM

Wife?

You think I'm playing dumb and I think you're making stuff up.

I firmly believe someone shouldn't be held accountable for their spouse's actions or statements.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Flow, you crazy as a #### if you think Clarence


Jul 1, 2022, 5:15 PM

didn't know his wife was neck deep in trying to overthrow the election. He did nothing to stop her involvement and ruled on a case involving J6. He was complicit and should have enough respect for the law to admit his mistake and step down from the court. But he’s not going to do that. From his opinions, it’s clear he wants to inflict as much catholic fundamentalism on Americans as he can.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Really think about this: We have a Q believer on the SCOTUS


Jul 1, 2022, 9:48 AM



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-19b.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Really think about this


Jul 1, 2022, 9:57 AM

You are wrong as usual.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Strong argument.***


Jul 1, 2022, 10:01 AM



military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I read the dissent and admittedly legal jargon often sends


Jul 1, 2022, 10:22 AM

my head spinning.

But he seemed to be stating the plaintiffs argument (about cells from aborted babies) without actually indicating whether he believed the cells came from aborted babies. His dissent seemed to revolve around the fact that religious reasons (whether founded or not) had been accepted in other COVID issues - and that the COVID situation was still too fluid to allow religious arguments in some cases, but not in others.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Really think about this: We have a Q believer on the SCOTUS


Jul 1, 2022, 11:06 AM

fake news

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Replies: 49
| visibility 595
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic