Friday Talking Points -- Outrage Piled Upon Outrage
[Program Note: We are pleased to announce that after a rather extended hiatus (due to several outrages being exposed to the American people in Washington), this column is returning today to its standard format.]
The two biggest political topics of the past week were the continuing outrages piling up from both the Supreme Court and the House Select Committee on January 6th.
On Tuesday, a young aide who worked for Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows, appeared in a surprise House committee hearing. The previous week, the committee had let it be known that there would be no hearings over the two-week Independence Day break. But a day beforehand, a new hearing was announced without fanfare and without any details.
The witness who appeared, Cassidy Hutchinson, had apparently been getting threatening messages from those still surrounding Donald Trump. They read like mob bosses leaning on a witness who might spill the beans:
What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know I'm on the right team. I'm doing the right thing. I'm protecting who I need to protect. You know, I'll continue to stay in good graces in Trump World.
This included phone calls, too:
[A person] let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know he's thinking about you. He knows you're loyal and you're going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.
One can certainly picture a Mafia don issuing such commands. This is why her hearing was moved up so quickly, for her to avoid getting threats and intimidation from her previous employers and bosses.
Her testimony was jaw-dropping in its detail of how petulant and childish Donald Trump can be when he doesn't get his own way. The hearing was watched by over 13 million viewers, more than any of the other daytime hearings have gotten.
Hutchinson was then (quite predictably) verbally attacked by stooges still ensconced in "Trump World." Minor parts of her testimony were challenged -- by Trump yes-men. Anonymously. In vague sorts of ways. The more-important parts of her testimony about Trump weren't mentioned.
Her attackers, it should be noted, were not under oath -- how could they be? They were anonymous.
One thing which did seem rather obvious is that Team Trump isn't just using threats to intimidate witness, they are also tampering with witnesses before the January 6th committee in a different way -- by offering them things of value if they conveniently forget what took place before their eyes. High-priced lawyers are being provided to many of the witnesses called, and they are being paid for by Donald Trump and all the various political entities he directly controls.
Chalk up one more federal crime on his tab, we suppose. We wrote our reactions to the testimony back on Tuesday, if anyone's interested in a deeper dive into what Hutchinson said.
The Supreme Court wrapped up its yearly caseload this week, which meant a big change happened as well: Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in as the first Black woman justice. Of course, this is impressive and a credit to Joe Biden for nominating her, but it won't change anything because the balance of the court will still be 6-to-3.
We've only lived in the post-Roe world for a week now, and already the midterm landscape seems to be shifting in Democrats' favor as a direct result. Up until now, the end of Roe was merely theoretical -- for both sides. Now it is reality. And voters are already angry. Both Democratic and independent voters are already a lot more motivated to go to the ballot box this year, which could mean the expected "red wave" may not appear -- or at the very least, may be a lot smaller than predicted.
While Democrats are already making abortion rights a key point in their campaigns and are already seeing better polling as a result, Republicans for the most part really don't want to talk about it at all. GOP strategists are already worried about the effect on their candidates. Especially those running in purple swing districts. And most especially by one Republican House member who has always campaigned on being "pro-life" but earlier was exposed as a man who "had urged his pregnant mistress to get an abortion -- a stunning revelation that was caught on tape -- and that his ex-wife had two abortions herself." In other words, do as I say, not as I do. Once again -- hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.
But back to the elections. Pro-choice Democrats are now getting to play offense, after years of playing defense on the abortion issue. Democrats are now the ones running ads and getting voters motivated enough to get to the polls. Ballot issues are planned or will be on the ballots in more than one state, as well. The abortion issue has the potential, at the state level, of being just as effective for Democrats as the whole "banning gay marriage" thing was for Republicans, a few decades back. It will boost turnout. It will motivate the voters. And that's exactly what Democrats needed right about now.
One good thing to come out of this past week's crop of primary elections was seeing Tina Peters lose her bid to become the head elections official in Colorado. She's already been stripped of her duties as a county clerk because she allowed her elections machines to be tampered with (by those intent on proving the election had somehow been "stolen" from Donald Trump), so it's a good thing she'll never be in charge of the whole state (also amusing -- even though she lost by over 15 points, she immediately refused to concede and started spewing some more "stolen election" nonsense). However, while both Peters and some other Big Lie believers lost, not all of them did -- so there will be candidates for the top elections officer on the ballot in more states than one in November.
OK, we're going to have to whip through the rest of these political happenings in lightning fashion, because there were so many of them to get to, so buckle up, here goes....
A (male) Republican running for state office in Rhode Island was caught on tape punching his (female) Democratic opponent in the face this week, during an abortion protest. At least he had the decency to immediately drop out of the race, but the whole thing shows us all once again which side of this issue truly believes that violence is acceptable in fighting for it.
A Republican House member speaking at a rally with Donald Trump called the Supreme Court decision a "victory for White life." She later claimed she misspoke and meant to say "victory for the right to life" (which does at least sound semi-believable, to be fair).
A Mississippi lawmaker openly admitted to a reporter that, yes, 12-year-old incest victims and rape victims will indeed be forced to bear their children under state law. He spoke favorably of this outcome, like it was a good thing.
A Republican running for House in Virginia (wrongly) stated that rape victims were somehow magically able to not get pregnant. That takes us back... remember Todd Akin, anyone?
One American tradition -- dating from the very start of the 1800s -- was badmouthed this week, as Representative Lauren Boebert says she is tired of that whole "separation of church and state" thing. Here's the quote:
The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it. I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk that's not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does.
The "stinking letter" in question was, of course, written by Thomas Jefferson. So much for all that faux reverence for the Founding Fathers and their "original intent," eh?
The attorney general in Texas is itching not just for a fight on abortion bans, but is also considering defending the state's anti-sodomy law again (after being struck down by a previous iteration of the Supreme Court). This would make not only all gay sex illegal, but also oral sex for people of any orientation.
Meanwhile, Ted Cruz has picked a fight with the Sesame Street character Elmo, for getting out the message to parents of young children that it's a good time to get them all vaccinated (now that the vaccine has been approved for the youngest children).
Kevin McCarthy tried to tell everyone up was down this week, which was pretty laughable:
Remember what happened after January 6th: Republicans proposed having like a 9/11 commission, where [the] minority [party] would have a right to have subpoenas, would have a say in witnesses. Nancy Pelosi said no, so then she created this committee.
Um, no, Kevin. Not even close, in fact. Pelosi actually did get the bipartisan commission passed through the House (with only 35 Republicans voting for it) and then it moved over to the Senate where Republicans killed it.
A good buddy of Rudy Giuliani, Lev Parnas, just got sentenced to 20 months in prison this week, which seems about par for the course for Trump toadies.
Rudy showed the world what a liar and a gigantic snowflake he truly is, by describing a man assaulting him (which felt "like a shot on my back -- like somebody shot me") but when the in-store video was later released it was plain to see it was no more than a simple pat on the back.
Liz Cheney gave a fiery speech at the Reagan Library, which contained the following lines (which the Republican crowd applauded):
At this moment we're confronting a domestic threat that we have never faced before -- and that is a former president who is attempting to unravel the foundations of our constitutional republic.... [some Republicans have become] willing hostages to this dangerous and irrational man.... Republicans cannot both be loyal to Donald Trump and loyal to the Constitution."
Later in the week, Cheney also turned in an even feistier debate performance in her re-election bid. Her closing comments in the debate are well worth watching (and not that long): "I will never violate my oath of office, and if you're looking for somebody who will, then you need to vote for somebody else on this stage."
From news that happened earlier than last week (since it has been a while):
Carpetbagger Mehmet Oz filed elections paperwork that misspelled the name of the Pennsylvania town he is supposed to be living in. He's already polling behind the Democrat in the race, and this probably won't help that situation among true Pennsylvanians.
Former Democratic candidate for governor in Florida Andrew Gillum was federally charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, and making false statements. He swears he is innocent, but those charges sound pretty serious.
On the Republican side of the aisle, South Dakota not only went through its first impeachment ever but they also convicted and removed the state's attorney general and for good measure banned him from ever running for office again in the state, due to his unconvincing answers about a one-car accident where he killed a man with his car -- and then didn't report it until the next morning.
Herschel Walker, Republican candidate for Senate in Georgia, thinks the United States now has 52 states, apparently. This fits in with all the other "dumb as a rock" statements he's made in his race, to date.
And finally, we will end with Representative Eric Swalwell's perfect response to Donald Trump's whining (about how he should be given some sort of "equal time" on television to counter all the incoming damage he's been taking from the January 6th committee). Swalwell tweeted, in response:
Equal time means sitting your lying ass in a witness chair. We'll wait.
Our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is Representative Judy Chu.
Yesterday, Chu was arrested for peacefully protesting outside the Supreme Court. Here's the story:
Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) was arrested Thursday for participating in an abortion rights protest outside the U.S. Capitol in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
Chu was among 181 people the Capitol Police arrested for "for blocking the intersection of Constitution Avenue, NE and First Street, NE," which is also near the Supreme Court.
"When I think of all these women -- and more -- the decision to join in a peaceful demonstration to make clear we will not allow the clock to be rolled back on abortion rights was easy," Chu said in a statement. "We are in this together and we will not back down or be silenced."
She tweeted about her reasons for doing so, as well:
The decision to march today was easy--I came out to march for the young rape survivor, the woman who cannot afford to travel to another state to access critical care, the mother with an ectopic pregnancy whose life is in danger. I came out to march for all of us.
All of this is impressive. Standing up for what you believe in is important, right now. But there's a further reason why Chu in particular is this week's MIDOTW. From a different story on her arrest comes a different quote from Chu:
I am ramping up my calls to abolish the Senate filibuster -- and actively exploring every option to ensure we pass my bill, the Women's Health Protection Act, which establishes a federal right to abortion care, and have it signed into law. Lives are at stake and this fight is far from over.
Got that? She's not just in favor of Congress codifying abortion rights into federal law, she wrote the bill that would most effectively do so. It would expand upon the rights in Roe, because it would not only explicitly state that women have the right to an abortion before viability, it would make it illegal for states to pass regulations to restrict this right. It wouldn't just wave a magic wand and make Roe return, it would throw out all the hurdles that many states have created for women to jump over in order to exercise their rights.
And that is incredibly impressive! So this was an easy pick, this week. Our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week goes to Representative Judy Chu. Chu has shown how to be proactive instead of just reactive to the loss of constitutional rights by five unelected radicals on the high court.
[Congratulate Representative Judy Chu on her House contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]
Sadly, President Joe Biden is our pick for Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, for two reasons (although one is still barely more than rumors, at this point).
To be fair to him, though, we have to at least mention that last Friday he got to sign the first gun safety legislation in decades, after a compromise was hammered out in Congress. That will be seen as a major part of his legacy, but it was barely noticed in the Roe fray that day.
Biden has not exactly been quick off the mark in reaction to Roe being overturned. He has had a whole week now, and the actions he has announced are pretty unimpressive, when they could have been much bigger.
He did make some news yesterday, by adding abortion rights to voting rights on his list of "things I would support the filibuster being eliminated for," but that's a rather moot point right now since Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema aren't going to budge -- meaning the earliest this could even happen would be next January, and only if Democrats manage to flip at least two Senate seats.
Granted, Joe Biden has been busy with international meetings in Europe this week, but even so -- the White House knew this was coming. A draft opinion actually leaked, so it wasn't any surprise to anyone. And yet Biden's team seems like they were caught flat-footed.
That might not have been enough for Biden to qualify for the MDDOTW (perhaps a (Dis-)Honorable Mention would have covered it. But there was one little-noticed but rather ominous story out of Kentucky this week, from a recap story in USA Today:
Democrats are blasting President Joe Biden for agreeing to nominate an anti-abortion Republican to a lifetime federal judgeship in Kentucky, less than a week after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
"The president is making a deal with the devil and once again" and "the people of Kentucky are crushed in the process," Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Charles Booker tweeted after The Courier Journal broke the story Wednesday night.
"At a time when we are fighting to protect human rights, this is a complete slap in the face."
U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Louisville, who confirmed Biden is poised to nominate Chad Meredith to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, called it a "huge mistake."
"Why you would pick him to fill a federal vacancy when you're a Democratic president is beyond me."
Yarmuth said the nomination is bad not only because Meredith is anti-abortion but because of his actions in the general counsel office when he helped former Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin issue hundreds of controversial pardons at the end of his term that spurred outrage and a federal investigation.
Gov. Andy Beshear, said Thursday he also strongly opposes the pick, saying his team was informed last week that Biden intended to nominate Meredith.
Beshear said his understanding is that Biden has not yet submitted the nomination, "which I hope means in the very least it's on pause.
"If the president makes that nomination, it is indefensible."
Biden was poised to nominate Meredith presumably as the result of an undisclosed deal with U.S. [sic] Mitch McConnell, Yarmuth told The Courier Journal.
McConnell has blocked the nominations of two lawyers for U.S. attorney positions there were [sic] recommended by Yarmuth. The presumption is that with Meredith's nomination, McConnell would agree not to hold up future federal nominations from the Biden White house [sic], Yarmuth said.
In other words, it may not be a done deal yet. There actually are no current vacancies in the Eastern District of Kentucky, although there are two judges who are approaching or at retirement age. So one could open up quite soon.
Biden still has time to reconsider this. He would be giving in to hostage-taking, plain and simple, and if Mitch McConnell knows this could work, then he'll be using it again, obviously. This won't end with just one anti-abortion judge, in other words.
Hopefully, Biden will indeed reconsider and not make this nomination. If he decides not to, then we promise we'll downgrade this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to just a (Dis-)Honorable Mention.
[Contact President Joe Biden on the White House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]
Volume 667 (7/1/22)
One sad note before we begin the talking points section of our program.
It was with heavy heart we heard the news that Mark Shields had passed away. Shields was one of the best political commentators to ever appear on television, and was an absolute fixture on the PBS NewsHour for over 30 years running.
He will be sorely missed.
Requiescat In Pace.
Moving along, our talking points this week are all on the same theme. Democrats need to make this entire argument central to their midterm campaigns, as indeed many have already done. The basic idea is to tell the voters exactly how extreme the Republican Party has now become -- how they've jettisoned any commonsense reasoning in their full-tilt attempt to impose theocracy on millions upon millions of American women (and men, too -- abortion rights do not merely impact women, it is always worth noting -- men should be just as angry and just as motivated to vote as women).
Republicans are not "pro-life" in any way
This one is from a rather excellent rant in Salon, which urges Democrats to adopt some clear messaging. We found we could not improve upon the wording of it:
Here's another story Dems could tell: that the right-wing tells lies, projects its own misdeeds onto others and then lies again. Take the issue of abortion. Republicans accuse Democrats of being baby killers and bray about being "pro-life" when the overwhelming majority of them have done nothing to help struggling parents and families. They don't support universal (or any kind of) health care. Or parental leave, [child] tax credits, affordable child care, food stamps, free school lunches, universal preschool or gun safety. Republican lawmakers screamed about the formula shortage and then voted against the bill that would help address it. Their words mean nothing because we can see what they do; their actions reveal they don't care about the born, let alone the unborn.
They're not pro-life. They're pro-control. They're pro-cruelty. Pro-punishment. Pro-death. They believe people with uteruses are livestock, less than human, bodies to be bred or sterilized according to the most extreme right-wing demands, while kindergartners remain cannon fodder for gun fetishists. This is absurd and obscene. Maybe Democrats can say so, and keep repeating it.
Republicans want to ban abortion nationwide
Don't let them get away with saying "now it'll be up to the states to decide, as it should be," because they are lying.
"Make no mistake about it, this wasn't the final battle in this fight. Republicans are trying to have it both ways -- by insisting that women's basic constitutional rights can now be decided at the state level, but then also plotting to pass a nationwide ban on abortion. They're getting that teed up and ready to go, just in case they take one or both houses of Congress in the midterms. They will fail, with Joe Biden in the White House, but what happens when the Republicans next control all of Congress and the White House? They will ban abortion nationwide -- probably with no exceptions for the victims of rape or incest. Some of them even want to make abortion illegal when the life of the mother is at risk. That's what's next, if they get control. Make no mistake about it."
Republicans are fine with 12-year-old rape or incest survivors being forced to have a baby
It certainly didn't take them long to show their true stripes on this one, did it?
"Republicans don't even pretend to care anymore, as they legislate their version of a theocracy. Who in their right mind would force a 12-year-old child who has been raped by her father or brother to be forced to bear her own child? That is barbaric, and yet that is exactly what they want for America's children. Raped? Doesn't matter. Pregnant through incest? That's your problem, not ours. This is nothing short of a rapists' bill of rights and all reasonable Americans should wake up to exactly what is going on, because Republicans will come right out and agree that a 12-year-old victim of a heinous crime should be further traumatized by being forced to carry and bear the child -- while still a pre-teen child herself. Republicans want the girls of today to have fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers had."
Republicans want to dictate what you can and cannot do in other states
Yet another example of the falsity of "let's just leave it up to the states, that'll work out" argument.
"Republicans are trying to pass laws making it illegal for a woman who lives in a red state to travel to a blue state in order to gain her constitutional rights over her own body. This is insane, but that is exactly what they are contemplating. What do they think this is, Soviet Russia? Internal passports, anyone? What are they going to do, test women at border checks? This is authoritarianism gone hog wild, and it is possibly the most un-American idea I have ever heard. Any American should be free to travel to another state and do anything that is legal in that state without fearing arrest upon returning home. Period. End of sentence. But that's not what Republicans have in mind...."
Republicans want to police your mail
This is equally insane.
"Republicans want to make it illegal for women to get FDA-approved medicine in the mail from another state. They really don't even know how they're going to go about doing this, since the mail is a federal function. States aren't allowed to interfere, to put it another way -- they can't start inspecting and/or opening packages coming in to their state! And yet that is exactly what they want to do, even if they haven't quite figured out how to go about it. This is all about control, folks. Government control -- the very thing Republicans used to say they hated. They have dreams of instituting their very own police states, where your mail is inspected and your neighbors will be rewarded for snitching on you. George Orwell would have recognized this for what it is -- but Republicans somehow don't seem to."
Republicans are for government censorship of speech
This is just as obscene as all the rest of them.
"There's a draft piece of legislation making the rounds among Republicans that would make it illegal for anyone, anywhere to give 'instructions over the telephone, the internet, or any other medium of communication regarding self-administered abortions or means to obtain an illegal abortion.' This would include websites, of course. They're not even trying to hide this one, this is flagrant government censorship of speech. It would be a monumental attack on the First Amendment. But they don't care -- Republicans are just fine with 'big government' as long as it goes after people they don't approve of."
Republicans want to return America not just to the 1960s but the 1860s
This should shock anyone with a brain.
"The five radical justices on the Supreme Court have created a brand-new test for any American law. Namely, does it have a history which stretches far back into the 19th and even 18th century? If not, it can be thrown out. They cherry-picked their historical research so that their point was made -- while completely ignoring all the American laws which are just as old which allowed for legal abortions up to the time of quickening (when the baby starts to independently move). They just completely ignored all those laws, and picked the ones they liked instead. This is beyond intellectual dishonesty, folks. But that's the world the five radicals want us all to live in -- not the pre-Roe 1960s, but in fact the 1860s. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in that America in the 21st century!"
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
I think you made a mistake in your Elmo reporting.
https://www.theonion.com/elmo-receives-vasectomy-in-psa-on-preventing-unwanted-p-1849129634
Biden is no longer a leader. His days as Fightin' Biden and Battlin' Biden are past (the same can be said of most of the way-too-old Dem leaders). [Yes, I went there; don't care what anyone thinks about that part.]
States need to take the lead. Specifically, NY and CA can defy SCOTUS. Not ignore, actively defy. ME, CT, WA, and others can join (maybe even DC). Doing it well and with vigor could put Newsom on a Presidential run trajectory, even.
No taxpayer funded religious schools in their states. Hey, the rabid and radical Republican judges can open their checkbooks and donate money to those schools, if they want.
They can enforce gun control and safety laws that they have on the books, independent of what the Court ruled. If they wanted to be rude, they could remove security features, such as metal detectors, from federal courthouses in their states.
No praying on the 50-yd line. (Really? That's even a question?)
State legislated enviro regs.
Challenge the Executive Branch to utilize its Checks & Balances role to refuse to enforce Judicial Branch rulings.
Challenge the Legislative Branch to apply strict scrutiny to the Judiciary's budget. Alito can scrub his own damned toilet. Kavanaugh can type his own 50-page opinion. Any Justice who can't do those things should have retired a long time ago.
That's fighting for us. If there's one thing the LOLPE taught us, it's that if supporters believe you're fighting for you, they'll have your back. If not, not so much.
Freudian slip? After all, you don't have to fight on their behalf, they just need to believe you are (again, a lesson from the LOLPE).
In any case, that last bit should read
if supporters believe you're fighting for them, they'll have your back. If not, not so much.
The presumption is that with Meredith's nomination, McConnell would agree not to hold up future federal nominations from the Biden White house [sic], Yarmuth said.
So, if Biden renegs on this deal, then McConnell will continue holding up future Biden nominations?
I remember when deal making between Dems and Republicans wasn't so frowned upon around here.
Besides, THIS is what qualifies Biden for a MDDOTW award!? Even I could come up with a more substantial case against Biden in that regard.
Like, for example, the fact that Biden, in an obvious effort to see the Russians invade Ukraine, says Ukraine membership in NATO is most decidedly off of the negotiating table but now says that it is up to a sovereign Ukraine to decide which alliances it wishes to be part of.
This alone should be enough to have Biden be the standing winner of the MDDOTW awards, indefinitely ... until he does something impressive.
And, even then, let him have both!
Until this stupid, unnecessary war is over.
One can certainly picture a Mafia don issuing such commands. This is why her hearing was moved up so quickly, for her to avoid getting threats and intimidation from her previous employers and bosses.
Except, of course, there are NO FACTS to support ANY of her claims.
And we DO know that she is a PROVEN liar, so the chances are really REALLY good it never happened..
Her testimony was jaw-dropping in its detail of how petulant and childish Donald Trump can be when he doesn't get his own way. The hearing was watched by over 13 million viewers, more than any of the other daytime hearings have gotten.
Her testimony was bullshit... Pure and simple... She had absolutely NO FACTS to support ANY of her outlandish claims and there are PLENTY of facts that prove she lied..
And not a SINGLE mention of the FACT that multiple witnesses directly and clearly and NOT ANONYMOUSLY completely contradicted her claims.
In other words, it's a FACT that she lied and it's not even mentioned in the commentary..
As I said.. Ya'all WANT to believe it and when there are FACTS that contradict the HATE PRESIDENT TRUMP claims, ya'all ignore those facts..
Sad.. PTDS again raises it's ugly head.. Gods I miss the old CW... HE would have put ALL the facts out there and let the readers decide.. :(
We've only lived in the post-Roe world for a week now, and already the midterm landscape seems to be shifting in Democrats' favor as a direct result.
Not factually accurate.. There has been no change whatsoever.. Democrats are still on track to have the biggest losing mid-terms in history..
I made a bet with myself that the fact that this Hutch bimbo lied to attack President Trump would not be mentioned in the FTP commentary..
Sadly, I won again.. :^/
S2
Biden is no longer a leader.
HA!!! I have been saying that since last August and Biden's Handlers' Afghanistan debacle that got 13 brave American troops killed..
Glad ta see ya finally came around to my way of thinking, Speak...
About frakin' time.. Apparently ya need a ton o bricks ta fall on ya.. :^/
States need to take the lead. Specifically, NY and CA can defy SCOTUS. Not ignore, actively defy.
Yer talking INSURRECTION there, dood..
I guess insurrections are perfectly acceptable to you Democrats when it's DEMOCRATS who are insurrecting, eh?
:eyeroll:
Apparently, not only has Democrats NOT fallen far from their racist roots... Democrats have not fallen far from their insurrectionist roots either..
"ONWARD TO FORT SUMTER!!!"
-Democrat Party
:eyeroll:
So, if Biden renegs on this deal, then McConnell will continue holding up future Biden nominations?
I remember when deal making between Dems and Republicans wasn't so frowned upon around here.
You tell it, sister!!!!
It's all part and parcel to the extremist hate that has boiled over here in Weigantia...
Speak2 is pushing insurrection... The new Weigantia Moderator is ignoring ALL the facts that don't support his PTDS dementia...
All of this would have NEVER happened if CW were still around.. :( I miss my old friend..
Besides, THIS is what qualifies Biden for a MDDOTW award!? Even I could come up with a more substantial case against Biden in that regard.
It's all hate.. All the time... :(
This alone should be enough to have Biden be the standing winner of the MDDOTW awards, indefinitely ... until he does something impressive.
The most impressive thing Biden could do right now is get out of office..
New York approves gun law requiring buyers to provide social media handles
The law struck down by the Supreme Court stated that gun owners would have to demonstrate 'proper cause' to receive a concealed carry license
The new law will require people trying to purchase a handgun license to hand over a list of social media accounts they have maintained over the last three years, so officials can verify their "character and conduct."
According to the measure, applicants must prove they have "the essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself and others."
https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-approves-gun-law-requiring-buyers-provide-social-media-handles
New York is just BEGGING for another slap down from the SCOTUS, eh? :eyeroll:
But hay.. Tell ya what...
Let's make a law that says if you want to kill your baby, you have to provide 4 character references and provide the username of all your social media accounts.
Yunno.. To prove that you are simply not being a Casey Anthony...
What part of *NO* do Democrats simply not understand??
Why Didn’t Democrats Codify Roe When They Had the Chance?
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and restore the power of states to set their own abortion policies, some progressives are demanding to know: Why didn’t Democrats pass a federal law codifying Roe when they controlled the White House and had overwhelming majorities in Congress?
http://tinyurl.com/b2sc48np
Your Democrats have had MULTIPLE opportunities to codify baby-killing into law..
Why didn't your Democrats do that??
Because they couldn't convince even DEMOCRATS and their own RINO pets to vote for it..
Like I said and I have PROVEN beyond ANY doubt..
Democrats have ONLY themselves to blame for their current predicament..
END OF WATCH
Deputy Sheriff William Petry
Floyd County Sheriff's Office, Kentucky
End of Watch: Thursday, June 30, 2022
And remind the few...
When ill of us they speak..
That we are all that stands between..
The monsters and the weak...
END OF WATCH
Captain Ralph Frasure
Prestonsburg Police Department, Kentucky
End of Watch: Thursday, June 30, 2022
And remind the few...
When ill of us they speak..
That we are all that stands between..
The monsters and the weak...
END OF WATCH
Patrol Officer Jacob Chaffins
Prestonsburg Police Department, Kentucky
End of Watch: Thursday, June 30, 2022
And remind the few...
When ill of us they speak..
That we are all that stands between..
The monsters and the weak...
Correction to the above..
Patrol Officer Jacob Chaffins should have been identified as K9 Patrol Officer Jacob Chaffins...
Officer Chaffins' K9, Drago was also killed in this brutal attack on Law Enforcement Officials..
Great job, Democrats..
Looks like the
scumbag fell down a few flights of stairs..
Clumsy asshole...
The Coming Rise of Abortion as a Crime
Before last week, women attempting to have their pregnancies terminated in states hostile to abortion rights already faced a litany of obstacles: lengthy drives, waiting periods, mandated counseling, throngs of volatile protesters. Now they face a new reality. Although much is still unknown about how abortion bans will be enforced, we have arrived at a time when abortions—and even other pregnancy losses—might be investigated as potential crimes. In many states across post-Roe America, expect to see women treated like criminals.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-coming-rise-of-abortion-as-a-crime/ar-AAZ4lJR
Good!!! If women intentionally kill their babies, they SHOULD be investigated...
Just ask Casey Anthony...
And once again... Democrats only have themselves to blame..
They should have just been satisfied with SAFE, LEGAL and RARE...
I have absolutely NO PITY for Democrats...
Let's make a law that says if you want to kill your baby, you have to provide 4 character references and provide the username of all your social media accounts.
Or, better yet..
To have the right to vote, before EVERY election, you have to provide 4 character references and give up all your social media accounts so we can make sure you have the character and intelligence to vote..
What IS it with you Democrats and your blatant and moronic anti-American attempts to shred the US Constitution???
3 police officers, K9 dead after encountering 'pure hell' at wanted man's home
Kentucky police shooting: 3 officers, police K9 dead following shootout at suspect's home
Lance Storz, 49, was taken into custody following the shootout in Prestonsburg, Kentucky
https://www.foxnews.com/us/kentucky-police-shooting-3-officers-police-k9-dead-shootout-suspect-home
GREAT job yer doing, Democrats.. :eyeroll:
THIS would have NEVER happened under President Trump's watch...
M [9]
The departure from Afghanistan was not a debacle.
After 20 yrs and trillions upon trillions of dollars, there was no clean way to leave the country. Any and all exit scenarios were ugly.
Staying would have been the continuance of a mistake. That leaves one with a set of PR-Bad options. I think he did fine with that one.
It's not like no one was dying in Afghanistan with our presence. It was a failure to begin with.
Thank you, President Biden, for getting us out of that mess with a minimum of casualties.
Michale [19]
Local police in an extremely conservative republican town in a very conservative republican state and you are blaming democrats? Take responsibility for your team's policies. Federal authorities have nothing to do with this situation...
Key indicator suggests weak response by Democrats to historic Supreme Court abortion ruling
Will Dobbs energize Dems? Primary turnout in key blue state indicates weak response to SCOTUS' abortion ruling
The Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs last week failed to motivate large numbers of Illinois Democrats to engage in the primary
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/will-dobbs-energize-dems-primary-turnout-key-blue-state-indicates-weak-response-scotus-abortion-ruling
Democrats are losing their fizzle...
Typical... Democrats simply aren't built for the long game...
:eyeroll:
Bashi,
It's the over-all Ferguson Effect that is at work here..
Over-disrespect for LEOs that Democrats push.
THAT makes the Democrats responsible..
I know, I know.. You refuse to see the facts and the reality..
"Party Uber Alles..."
The Ferguson Effect in a 97.3% white, extremely conservative republican town?
I know, I know.. You refuse to see the facts and the reality..
Michale,
Your misogynistic views and fear of loss of male power over women have come through these comment threads with great clarity on a daily, if not hourly, basis.
So, ENOUGH of your incessant "baby killing" nonsense. Stick to your OWN body!
You know what's hilarious? That Americans don't have a right to privacy. What a country!
Your misogynistic views and fear of loss of male power over women have come through these comment threads with great clarity on a daily, if not hourly, basis.
Liz,
My opposition to baby killing has nothing to do with misogyny...
Perhaps it is your sexism that is leading you to that completely unfounded and totally non-serious accusation..
You know what's hilarious? That Americans don't have a right to privacy.
So, you think someone that KILLS babies and WANTS to see babies killed should have a right to privacy???
What a disgusting thought.. :eyeroll:
Do ALL Canadians think like that?? What a country!! :eyeroll:
More M [9]
There is nothing insurrectionist or seditious about my suggestion. The Constitution ensures that when one branch of government starts growing too big for its britches and starts thinking about itself as first among equals, the other two branches have ways of bringing it down.
The Constitution was composed with the express intent of not including political parties. James Madison was vehemently opposed to the idea. He foresaw the abuses that would ensue.
We had an out-of-control Executive Branch under the previous administration. Unfortunately, partisan politics (exactly what Madison wanted to avoid) prevented the use of Checks & Balances when the admin ran amok.
Nonetheless, we all learned Checks & Balances in the 4th grade (when we learned the phrase Taxation without Representation and the call "don't shoot until you see the whites in their eyes" among others).
The Executive Branch has enforcement powers, not the Judicial Branch. That was on purpose and was intended for precisely this type of circumstance.
So, you think someone that KILLS babies and WANTS to see babies killed should have a right to privacy???>/i>
I think you have no right to impose your opposition to abortion on women. None, whatsoever.
As I have said, abortion shouldn't even be a legal issue. It should be a medical issue between a woman and her doctor with the only restrictions being based on medical advice.
So, you think someone that KILLS babies and WANTS to see babies killed should have a right to privacy???
I think you have no right to impose your opposition to abortion on women. None, whatsoever.
As I have said, abortion shouldn't even be a legal issue. It should be a medical issue between a woman and her doctor with the only restrictions being based on medical advice.
By the way, Michale, saying that you are opposed to abortion is a meaningless and silly and antiquated assertion for any man to make.
Lemme MC'spain this for you, Liz. Michale says he carries a "Non-partisan" voter registration but it's not a card he carries it's how he carries himself in these pages, which is as an obvious partisan hack. Maybe not a Repug but against any and everything that the Dems/Libs want to do for America.
Take abortion: with a swinger background @m shouldn't/ didn't oppose abortion. But he has often stated if ONLY the Dems had only been satisfied with safe, legal and rare... -- and once linked a website support group called "Shout Your Abortion" (which doesn't contain the words Democrat or Liberals) ...
And was therefore triggered into opposing abortion. Which proves that he's AUTOMATICALLY against whatever Dems/Libs want, even if it hurts his own standard of living.
So nothing he has to say on the subject is anything but "owning the Libs." Don't waste a lot of time confirming this FACT.
Yep @m,
You got triggered.
"Who the fuck are you?"
What movie is that from?
I won't assume it but it's the Comment Spamming you pollute Weigantia is "owning the Libs" to you?
Does it excite you?
So much so that it's worth getting up at 0400 to bap out stuff that most of us skim through?
How much are you paying CW to hijack his comments section? I ask because you're chasing away future Weigantians/financial support and that sucks so much I'll buy you out.
Hiya, Elizabeth Miller!
[34]
... it's right on the tip of my tongue!
I'm with MC on this one M.
I've got no prob with you commenting, with what you say, or how you say it (see below for quotes).
Obviously, you enjoy it in some sense, but there are others here. The problem with your commenting is simple.
There may be several conversations going on and people are wondering what someone's response will be.
Then, M comes along and drops a dozen (or more) comments and that's it. Most conversations come to a halt unless one were real compelling.
I think that's uncool.
Quotes: What's with the quotes? Here and there, a quote is illuminating, but the overuse is tedious.
I wonder if you have a quote app (like cat-gif meme generators). Type in a word and a handful of potentially applicable quotes pop up. (Note, if that hasn't already been done, I bet it would succeed as a site/app.)
[38]
Yo, speak2,
I've only been dwelling in Weigantia for two-plus years now and I've observed @m to be what I call an "attention junkie."
I've watched him post massive quantities of patently absurd material and thence watched him ratchet up the outrageousness like, up to 11, Dude until he "gets someone to bite" is the term that jumped into my mind. Pretty simple and always works, eventually. Over and over and over.
This being the first online family that I've ever joined and which helped me get through the isolation of Covid -- thanks guys! I don't know if @m thinks he's "owning the Libs" (and thus getting that full 4" hard-on, ahem) or if he qualifies as a troll.
[I'm a 63-y.o. SWM Hillbilly Army Vet with a dog and a kitty...remember when color TV first rocked my world...any 6 y.o. can kick my butt on any video game...FYI]
BUT... Being Utterly Truthful ...
AS one of our underrepresented cis white hetero male SCOTUS guys once wrote, I can't define Comment Spam but I know it when I see it.
So I hope you enjoy better results out of him than I (if'n you're a Loud and Proud Libtard, that is) because I don't think it's in him to be of any damned use.
*sigh*
I swear, since Reaganism first infected Murica I've been searching for a cogent conservative who can point out where I'm full of doo-doo and make me a better citizen-voter. They all run away when you confront them with reality.
I would say Don't Feed the Trolls but I don't see that flying down here. Weigantians just cannot say no once he gets outrageous enough. And poor Elizabeth appears to think that she can"reach him" of even reason with him. *smh*
Oh, and watch out for that durn auto correct feature, especially if you're bapping stuff out on a cracked cell phone.
MtnCaddy,
LEAVE ME ALONE!!!
MC
Yeah, I know it won't break thru, but it felt good at the time.
Peace.
I asked my wife about the "Who the F*** are you?" quote.
We agree that it's from multiple sources. You could all have a source on the tip of your respective tongues, and they can be different sources, and you'd all be right.
That said, her first reaction was to respond.
"I'm The Batman!"
**Weigantia**
Consider:
Don unfailingly "yanked the football away" when someone tried to engage by confronting him with reality, remember?
…and got so nasty in order to attract attention that he's gone. D'yall miss him? Nope..
no damned use, right?
***
Likewise, Michale runs away whenever one confronts him with reality. He's more sophisticated with his dismiss, distract/deflect and deny when he's not simply ignoring the points raised.
So. Why engage?
DON'T
FEED
THE
TROLL
Harumph. Well, don't ask don't get, right? So here I am, Weigantia, ASKING.
I'm tired of scrolling through the morning spew and I'm tired that he dominates Weigantia. So many might join Weigantia absent this right-wing crap.
[42]
Elizabeth Miller wrote:
MtnCaddy,
LEAVE ME ALONE!!!
What? As long as you post stupid shit you're in grave danger of it being pointed out to you. Sucks, eh?
Be careful not to let the door hit your fanny if you're going to be so sensitive.
BTW, MC, I once asked CW if he was M. It was a long time ago and I had trouble believing that someone who was obviously literate could put out his level of nonsense.
I assumed that CW put M out as a foil to prompt comments, because no one can repeat superficial propaganda in that manner and be serious.
OK, I know my Dad can, but he's in his 80s and he started listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio before Fox News existed.
He went from a being a Marxist (an actual Marxist; he once ran on a union slate against Albert Shanker b/c Shanker was too conservative) to being a Rabid Newt fan in a very short period of time. It was (and still is) scary.
I have since learned that yes, people can really be like M. It's sad (like a sign saying
Slow
Children
it's always sad).
@speak2
notwithstanding the unnecessary knock on m, i ALWAYS think that when i see a slow children sign!
@caddy,
m will be a part of this community as long as both he and CW consent to that state, so until and unless that changes, kindly quit whining about it. don was legitimately deranged (and extremely disrespectful of pie), m just has a very different worldview than we do. i'd strongly advise you to read the george packer article.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-packer-four-americas/619012/
JL
don't get me wrong, if chris finds a way to limit all users to three posts an hour i won't say no.
can ya smell me?
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jul/02/a-nose-for-history-academics-recreate-lost-smells-from-the-past
Joshua,
I did read that George Packer article the other day. I read it slowly and some parts more than once. But, I still don't feel equipped enough to discuss it. I'm gonna have to read it again, even more slowly.
And, I came across another article I'm going to read in the newest edition of Foreign Affairs. I think it is along the same lines but in an international context. The Perils of Pessimism: Why Anxious Nations are Dangerous Nations ...
And, how would you feel about three posts a day? :)
Yeah, poet, my wife and I have been joking that comment when we see the sign for 20+ yrs now. We're both teachers, so we occasionally feel [something bad], but we still make the gag. Nice to know someone else catches that one.
Concerning M, he is a big reason CW doesn't have ads, no doubt about it. He is a community member.
I am hoping a tad of behavior mod can work. Perhaps seeing how it has been perceived can help. And, you're right. My fairly rude knocking is not the best way to achieve that.
Speak2,
We agree that it's from multiple sources.
My source is Fargo, naturally. :)
Speak2
Trying to bring down a co-equal branch of the United States Government is, indeed, insurrection..
As for the SCOTUS being too big for it's britches??
Would you say that the SCOTUS was "too big for it's britches" when it overturned Dred Scott?? Or Plessy v Ferguson??
Let's face reality here.. Ya'all are simply throwing a childish temper tantrum because the SCOTUS isn't doing what you like..
If the SCOTUS had ruled the way ya'all like, ya'all would LOVE the SCOTUS..
There is a word for that. It's called HYPOCRISY...
I think you have no right to impose your opposition to abortion on women. None, whatsoever.
I am not.. The SCOTUS is not..
The SCOTUS has simply LET THE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE REPRESENTATICES IN THE STATES DECIDE..
It's called DEMOCRACY..
WHY are you so against DEMOCRACY???
As I have said, abortion shouldn't even be a legal issue. It should be a medical issue between a woman and her doctor with the only restrictions being based on medical advice.
So, the unborn baby has NO RIGHTS and NO SAY if he or she lives or dies???
Is THAT what you are advocating???
Sad...
By the way, Michale, saying that you are opposed to abortion is a meaningless and silly and antiquated assertion for any man to make.
Really?? So all the Democrat men who support baby killing..
Is THEIR support meaningless and silly and antiquated??
:eyeroll:
Speak2,
Yeah, I know it won't break thru, but it felt good at the time.
So you slam me for allegedly commenting just to "own" libs (as stoned-MC puts it) then turn right around and comment how it feels so good to try and "own" me..
Thanx for proving that you are the complete hypocrite I have always said you were.. :D
It's always nice to have my comments confirmed as factual... :D
Well, I see that stoned-MC has joined us again.. :eyeroll:
I'm tired of scrolling through the morning spew and I'm tired that he dominates Weigantia.
Listen, son.. The *ONLY* reason I can dominate Weigantia (I am still tickled pink that you use MY terminology.. :D) is because ya'all **ALLOW** me to dominate Weigantia..
NOTHING is stopping ANY of ya'all from matching me, comment for comment..
Answer MY facts with FACTS of yer own..
But ya'all won't do that because ya'all don't HAVE any facts of yer own...
Ya wanna know the biggest relevant fact here??
**NO ONE** could dominate Weigantia without the tacit approval and acquiescence of everyone IN Weigantia...
If ya don't like that I dominate Weigantia, the solution is simple...
TAKE ME ON...
DUH....
m will be a part of this community as long as both he and CW consent to that state, so until and unless that changes, kindly quit whining about it.
Thank you, Jean Luc...
don't get me wrong, if chris finds a way to limit all users to three posts an hour i won't say no.
As long as whatever the current moderator decides is applied to ALL Weigantians fairly I wouldn't have any problem with it either...
What ya say, Speak2, MC???
Would you accept restrictions to your commenting??
Speak2
Concerning M, he is a big reason CW doesn't have ads, no doubt about it. He is a community member.
What exactly are you saying here???
I am hoping a tad of behavior mod can work. Perhaps seeing how it has been perceived can help. And, you're right. My fairly rude knocking is not the best way to achieve that.
Ya catch more bees with honey than ya do with vinegar.. :D
I respond MUCH better to calm rational discourse than I do to personal attacks..
Personal attacks are indicative of nothing but a weak childish mind... :D
Sure, we ALL dabble at such on occasion..
But if your ONLY argument to my facts are personal attacks (as they have been) how do you expect to prevail??
Like I told MC.. If you don't like that I dominate here, take me on.. Match me comment for comment..
I can only dominate with YOUR tacit approval..
Speak2,
That said, her first reaction was to respond.
"I'm The Batman!"
Isn't the quote "I'M BATMAN"
I mean, there has been SOOO many Batman movies :eyeroll: and I haven't seen them all, but I am pretty sure that the quote came from the first Michael Keaton BATMAN and that the lines was "I'M BATMAN"
I could be wrong... Been known to happen..
OK, so I gotta ask...
Governors point to Biden admin's 'refusal' to enforce law as Supreme Court sounds alarm about protests
Maryland, Virginia govs respond to letter from Supreme Court marshal calling on them to protect justices
Maryland's and Virginia's governors called on AG Garland to 'do his job'
https://www.foxnews.com/us/maryland-virginia-respond-supreme-court-letter
What is the DEAL with Biden's Handlers allowing Democrat protesters to blatantly violate federal law???
Speak2, MC... This is a perfect opportunity to answer one of my FACTS with facts of yer own, in a calm, rational and non-personal attacks sort of way..
Ya both say ya don't want me to dominate here??
Fine.. Here's yer chance to "put me in my place" by responding with FACTS that it's perfectly OK to violate federal law in pursuit of the Democrat Party baby killing agenda..
So, have it.. Dominate me!! :D
"Two months ago, Governor Hogan and Governor Youngkin sent a letter calling on Attorney General Garland to enforce the clear and unambiguous federal statutes on the books that prohibit picketing at judges' residences.
A month later, hours after an assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh, the Department of Justice finally responded, declining to enforce the laws."
-Director of Communications Michael Ricci
What's it going to take before SCOTUS WannaBe AG Garland actually enforces Federal Law?? Someone actually getting killed?? Is THAT what Democrats are hoping for???
Ya'all whine and complain when President Trump allegedly violated federal law...
But when Democrats do it, it's perfectly acceptable to ya'all..
Is that not BLATANT hypocrisy???
Asking for a friend.. :D
Michale,
I am not.. The SCOTUS is not..[imposing their opposition to abortion on women.] The SCOTUS has simply LET THE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE REPRESENTATICES IN THE STATES DECIDE..It's called DEMOCRACY..
Well, correct me if I'm wrong but, haven't the people retained certain rights unto themselves ... rights that they have NOT delegated to their representatives? Such as the right to privacy, especially concerning their own reproductive bodily functions? That's part of democracy, too, right?
WHY are you so against DEMOCRACY???
Of course, I am not.
So, the unborn baby has NO RIGHTS and NO SAY if he or she lives or dies??? Is THAT what you are advocating???
Yes.
Sad...
Not at all. Oh, you mean YOU think it is sad. Well, that is your right!
Are we clear, now?
Well, correct me if I'm wrong but, haven't the people retained certain rights unto themselves ... rights that they have NOT delegated to their representatives? Such as the right to privacy, especially concerning their own reproductive bodily functions? That's part of democracy, too, right?
There is no right to privacy when you are ending the life of another person..
Do you understand that simple basic concept?
}}}}So, the unborn baby has NO RIGHTS and NO SAY if he or she lives or dies??? Is THAT what you are advocating???{{{{
Yes.
Wow... That's just cold and heartless...
Are we clear, now?
Very... And it's sad...
Postulate a scenario where you have an old person on life-support and the grown child of that person has the power to turn off the life support for the old person.
Once the old person dies, the child stands to inherit a lot of money..
Does the grown child have the "right to privacy" when they decide to turn off the life support for the old person??
Your claims of "privacy" is solely and completely based on your political ideology..
You have no moral or ethical leg to stand on regarding this issue...
@liz,
my post referenced three posts an HOUR. three posts a DAY i would find challenging, but i'd be happy to make the sacrifice if the alternative were for CW to shut down the comments section entirely.
JL
Joshua,
I was kidding. But, I could live with three posts a day and three responses ... so, six comments in all, per day. And, you would have to be on-topic with Chris's headlining pieces!
That would force a lot of self-editing and I think the comments would reflect the extra thought and effort that would have to be put into it ...
Of course, we may need to institute a word limit.
A word limit!!!??? Somebody, slap me!
Liz,
It would be completely unworkable...
The software cannot be set up that specifically...
The moderator would have to do things manually..
And I just can't see that happening...
Michale[70],
Apples and orangutans!
You, of all commenters here, should know better. :(
@m,
you've already stated your opinion. correct me if i'm wrong about it:
most americans don't agree with that opinion.
are you going to stand on that assertion, or provide some clarification or nuance?
JL
But any restrictions the moderator wants to put in place is fine and dandy with me..
As long as it applies to EVERYONE equally and is not based on political ideology (as has been done in the past) I wouldn't have any issues whatsoever...
Michale,
And I just can't see that happening...
Me, neither. We're just spit-balling here ... :)
fertilized egg = baby.
You are wrong about it..
I have stated my position on that issue quite clearly on several occasions..
And you are definitely wrong about it.. :D
are you going to stand on that assertion, or provide some clarification or nuance?
I have done on many occasions and don't really like to repeat myself..
Awww, who am I kidding..
Everyone knows I LOVE to repeat myself... :D
It's a hobby.. :D
Anyways, I am fine with the 6 week mark.. That is when we have a heartbeat.. That, for me, signals the beginning of a human life..
Just as you have stated that your restriction line is viability...
I am willing to compromise on my line if you are willing to compromise on yours....
We (you, me, Liz) DO agree on this issue, we simply differ on when...
I consider that an acceptable victory.. :D
Oh, look at the time! And, it's a sunny day. Have to run and get my favourite poolside position for the rest of the morning and early afternoon ...
Sunny Day - Lighthouse
I am willing to compromise on my line if you are willing to compromise on yours....
It's a medical issue and decision that is in the hands of the woman and her doctor. Of course, there are medical restrictions and malpractice etc. etc. so that is where I am willing to compromise.
It's a medical issue and decision that is in the hands of the woman and her doctor.
Not factually accurate.. It's an innocent life that is the issue.. And that innocent life deserves a chance AT life..
I am here to speak for that innocent life because Democrats are too uncaring to give a rip about that innocent life..
pardon, i've had the filters eat my comment so i'm going to re-post in parts. here goes:
1.
i appreciate your clarification. to revise, your position is:
however, you're also confounding two different issues.
2.
however, you're also confounding two different issues. neither liz nor i feels empowered to compromise on behalf of anyone else as to the "correct" opinion on the rights of embryos. this is one of the many areas where the poor, departed don failed to stretch his brain, and therefore couldn't understand people's concerns regarding his enterprise. just because someone HAS an opinion doesn't mean they are willing to ACT on that opinion, MUCH LESS impose that opinion on anyone else.
JL
ah, i misspelled blockquote and that apparently torpedoed the whole post.
JL,
#78 #79
just because someone HAS an opinion doesn't mean they are willing to ACT on that opinion, MUCH LESS impose that opinion on anyone else.
It's simply for the purposes of discussion..
It's not as if I am going to go out and start taking out doctors who perform abortions and I don't expect you are going to go out and start taking out prosecutors who prosecute people for before viability baby-killings..
It's simply an agreement in and of principle between 2 friends..
I am very anxious to hear your thoughts on Ep 09...
Whose bright idea was it to do 10-Episode seasons anyways!!!!???
You have to be so damned precise with that blockquote. :)
It's simply an agreement in and of principle between 2 friends..
What about me? :(
What about me? :(
You didn't seem to be in an agreeing mood..
But yes, my apologies.. I should have said 3 friends.. :D
I'm not going to compromise my OPINION. I believe that viability is a reasonable standard to begin considering the rights of a fetus, and heartbeat (which, such as it is, actually starts around week 13) is NOT a reasonable standard. That is my belief, and it may not be anyone's else's.
One's belief on this is akin to religion. I understand why roe was initially decided based on the 14th, but really it's a first amendment issue.
I'm always in an agreeing mood!
Later ... gotta catch some rays ...
It's simply not the place of 2 people, or 3 friends, or nine justices, nor hundreds of state legislators, to say which opinion on this is allowed.
I'm not going to compromise my OPINION. I believe that viability is a reasonable standard to begin considering the rights of a fetus, and heartbeat
Would it also be your opinion that the viability line COULD change with the changing technology???
It's simply not the place of 2 people, or 3 friends, or nine justices, nor hundreds of state legislators, to say which opinion on this is allowed.
Someone has to step up and protect the innocent from the Casey Anthonys of the Democrat Party...
It's simply not the place of 2 people, or 3 friends, or nine justices,
And yet, you were perfectly fine when 9 justices stepped in and conjured the right to baby-killing out of thin air..
You were fine with their "place" then, eh??
You see the point??
You see why I point out that the Left LOVES the SCOTUS.. When the SCOTUS rules the way the Left likes the SCOTUS to rule..
@m,
Yes i see your point, i just happen to disagree in the strongest of terms. The endowment of rights to a "potential" person who does not yet have all the abilities and characteristics of even an infant, is a matter for constitutional amendment. Failing that, it's beyond the scope of ANY government. For anyone who believes in a god, that's the only authority the constitution recognizes on the subject.
And in practical terms, what we're going to get as a result of Dobbs is a high tech bleeding Kansas.
Yes i see your point, i just happen to disagree in the strongest of terms. The endowment of rights to a "potential" person who does not yet have all the abilities and characteristics of even an infant, is a matter for constitutional amendment.
I agree..
We need a Constitutional Amendment to PROTECT that person so they can be allowed to GROW to acquire the abilities and characteristics of an infant..
And, while we will likely never get a Constitutional Amendment to the effect we will, eventually, likely get a Federal Law to that effect..
And that will be good enough for me...
For anyone who believes in a god, that's the only authority the constitution recognizes on the subject.
Which is why your argument fails with me..
I don't believe in a god...
I believe in FACTS.
And the FACT is, despite all the protestations to the contrary, an abortion after 6 weeks kills a beating heart of a human being..
This is an undeniable fact...
That's not a god saying that.. That is SCIENCE saying that...
Democrats are fond of saying that SCIENCE is their "god"..
But, apparently, only the "science" that fits their ideological agenda...
And in practical terms, what we're going to get as a result of Dobbs is a high tech bleeding Kansas.
I don't understand the reference...
I'm not going to compromise my OPINION. I believe that viability is a reasonable standard to begin considering the rights of a fetus, and heartbeat
Would it also be your opinion that the viability line COULD change with the changing technology???
Even Roberts wanted to throw out the viability issue...
Viability is simply not a viable (forgive the pun) line to base life/death decisions on..
It's too nebulous geographically, technologically and temporally...
That is precisely why it shouldn't even be a legal issue ... just a medical one.
@Liz,
I agree, it shouldn't be a legal issue. But as long as somebody in the government wants to exert control over the question, the law will be put in that position.
M [57]
Utilizing Checks & Balances is not insurrection. It's not like I'm doing it. I'm demanding the other two branches of gov't do it.
WRT Dred Scot in particular, SCOTUS quite literally had no choice.
https://jacobin.com/2020/09/abraham-lincoln-supreme-court-slavery
Once in power, Lincoln and congressional Republicans “reorganized” the federal judiciary and “packed” the court, adding an additional justice in 1863. More fundamentally, though, they simply ignored the proslavery precedents established in the 1850s. In June 1862, for instance, Congress passed and Lincoln signed a bill banning slavery from the federal territories — a direct violation of the majority ruling in Dred Scott. The court meekly acquiesced, recognizing that its political power was long since broken.
M [60]
You throw around the word hypocrisy a bit too easily. My complaint was the dozen-plus comments you drop all at once. That's the hijacking we're talking about.
As far as the personal stuff, we're all human. That's something we all screw up once in a while.
@m,
I agree that viability is a standard that is subject to change. But it's still the best we've got. The hard and cold fact is that no fetus has any constitutional rights until it breathes the outside air and becomes a baby. Therefore, any other rights must remain subjective.
M [63, 64]
I recall a December where you linked your comments to your donations to this site. It was an interesting concept.
My bringing it up wasn't an insult. It was a clear statement that you have every right to be here and that you do your part to keep the site up and running.
I think I responded to the rest of [63] above.
WRT the quote: I just typed what my wife's response was, whether it's an accurate quote or not.
I agree, it shouldn't be a legal issue. But as long as somebody in the government wants to exert control over the question, the law will be put in that position.
As long as there are Casey Anthonys in the world, baby killing AKA abortion SHOULD be a legal issue..
Utilizing Checks & Balances is not insurrection. It's not like I'm doing it. I'm demanding the other two branches of gov't do it.
But we're not talking about using checks and balances.. You were talking outright defiance of the courts..
Put it another way..
When the GOP takes over Congress next year, how would YOU feel if they simply ignored Biden's Handlers' Executive Orders..
That would be the EXACT same thing as what you are proposing...
Jean Luc,
I agree that viability is a standard that is subject to change.
Why didn't you say so!??
So, we agree again..
#1 We agree that there SHOULD be restrictions on abortion..
#2 We agree that, if it's the viability line that is the determining factor, it should change with the technology...
So what exactly are we arguing about??
The 2 relevant and main points of the issue, we are completely on the same page on...
Speak2,
I recall a December where you linked your comments to your donations to this site. It was an interesting concept.
My bringing it up wasn't an insult. It was a clear statement that you have every right to be here and that you do your part to keep the site up and running.
Ahhh OK.. I thought you were toe'ing MC's line that I am somehow bribing the moderator...
Since CW passed, such an idea is laughable...
My apologies...
M [66, 67]
Last comment for now (I'll come back later, this is my 4th this AM).
In Madsen v Women's Health Center, Inc (1994), SCOTUS ruled that prohibiting forced birthers from protesting outside the private residences of abortion providers was a violation of their first amendment rights.
Good for thee means it must be good for them, too.
The hard and cold fact is that no fetus has any constitutional rights until it breathes the outside air and becomes a baby.
And yet, ample legal precedent exists whereas an unborn baby is legally considered a person in areas of murder and child abuse...
So, legally, factually, your claim is not accurate...
Speak2,
In Madsen v Women's Health Center, Inc (1994), SCOTUS ruled that prohibiting forced birthers from protesting outside the private residences of abortion providers was a violation of their first amendment rights.
Which has nothing to do with the Federal Law that prohibits protesting outside of judges homes..
No matter how you want to dress it up, it's simply ILLEGAL, FEDERALLY, to protest outside a judge's residence.....
Last comment for now (I'll come back later, this is my 4th this AM).
Looking forward to it.. :D
And yet, ample legal precedent exists...
Precedent is common law, not part of the constitution.
Precedent is common law, not part of the constitution.
And now, thanx to the wisdom of the current SCOTUS, neither is abortion..
So, common law is what we got..
"Is this any good??"
"It's what we got..."
-DEMOLITION MAN
And common law, not to mention common decency and common sense, says that an unborn baby after a certain gestational period is a PERSON..
With RIGHTS...
This is fact...
And now, thanx to the wisdom of the current SCOTUS, neither is abortion..
To be technically accurate, abortion was NEVER part of the US Constitution....
One of the problems with common law is that it's extremely case specific. What's accepted in one case may be rejected the next. Hence, what happens is bleeding Kansas.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/19th-century/bleeding-kansas
One of the problems with common law is that it's extremely case specific. What's accepted in one case may be rejected the next.
Perhaps.. But the legal precedent HAS been established.
Now it's up to the citizens of states.....
Again, it is called DEMOCRACY....
Democrats can live as THEY wish and kill all the babies they want..
Patriotic Americans can live they way THEY want and actually protect life...
Everybody wins...
Well, except for the babies in Democrat states...
But if there is one thing I have learned in 30+ years in Public Safety...
You can't save everyone...
Bleeding Kansas describes the period of repeated outbreaks of violent guerrilla warfare between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces following the creation of the new territory of Kansas in 1854. In all, some 55 people were killed between 1855 and 1859. The struggle intensified the ongoing debate over the future of slavery in the United States and served as a key precursor to the Civil War.
Ahhh So, Democrats fighting and killing to protect their rights to keep slaves..
Are you SURE you want to go with that example???
I'm just sayin'....
The Kansas-Nebraska Act divided Douglas’ Democratic Party and inspired the formation of the Republican Party, which opposed extending slavery into new territory.
WOW...
So the GOP formed to PROTECT slaves from the evil Democrats..
WOW... Who knew, eh?? :eyeroll:
Do ya'all ever get the feeling ya'all are batting for the wrong team???
@m,
As is frequently the case, you've completely missed the point. In the 1850s the GOP didn't exist yet, so the Democrats were the only game in town. Much like today's SCOTUS, Congress decided to let the people of each state decide the issue with their votes. The result was chaos, violence, sedition and ultimately civil war, not to mention a permanent fracture in the party and the creation of the GOP.
Much like today's SCOTUS, Congress decided to let the people of each state decide the issue with their votes.
Not at all.. I EXACTLY get the point.. Well, maybe it's not YOUR point but it's the only relevant point..
Democrats fought for slavery and the right to keep slaves..
The GOP was created to FIGHT the Democrats and free the slaves...
So, again I have got to ask..
Do ya'all ever get the feeling yer batting for the wrong team??
With all the Left Wing hysteria over cancelling every historical aspect of slavery in this country, it amazes me that the Democrat Party still exists..
Since they are the Party that gave this country the KKK and Jim Crow...
Where's Cancel Culture when ya need it, eh?? :^/
As is frequently the case, you've completely missed the point. In the 1850s the GOP didn't exist yet, so the Democrats were the only game in town. Much like today's SCOTUS, Congress decided to let the people of each state decide the issue with their votes. The result was chaos, violence, sedition and ultimately civil war, not to mention a permanent fracture in the party and the creation of the GOP.
The difference between then and now, of course, is that THEN, thanx to Democrats, SLAVERY WAS part of the US Constitution...
Abortion has been nor ever will be part of the US Constitution...
So, once again, you are comparing apples and alligators... Or is it eskimos???
@m,
Again you're mangling history. Slavery was codified in the constitution by the federalists, over thirty years before the Democratic party existed.
The only point i was making about Dobbs is that it's equivalent to the Kansas Nebraska act, in that it takes a contentious national issue and rejects compromise, leaving it to local government. In bleeding Kansas we have a model for what happens when one does that.
The only point i was making about Dobbs is that it's equivalent to the Kansas Nebraska act
That's an opinion I disagree with...
Slavery doesn't compare to abortion, Constitutionally or otherwise..
In bleeding Kansas we have a model for what happens when one does that.
If Democrats want to fight for their right to kill babies as they fought for their right to keep slaves.....
I am MORE than willing to have that.... conversation...
As I recall, the "conversation" didn't work out to well for Democrats the LAST time....
I'm just sayin'.....
You seem to be saying that, to avoid the Kansas Bleeding, the US should have let the Democrats keep their slaves...
And that, to avoid another Kansas Bleeding, the US should continue to let Democrats kill babies...
Is that what you are saying???
Do you believe that Democrats are willing to start ANOTHER civil war to keep their right to kill babies??
Just as Democrats started a civil war to keep the right to keep slaves???
And again, this begs the question..
Are you absolutely CERTAIN you are batting for the right team???
The team that started a CIVIL WAR to be able to have the right to own other human beings???
Slavery doesn't compare to abortion, Constitutionally or otherwise.
On this we agree. Where we v disagree is on the questions of what constitutes a person, and which people (or other human-like entities) have the right to own themselves.
M [66]
I know you're quoting but "an assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh..."
You've got to be kidding. Let's not blow this out of proportion.
A guy was on his way to Kavanaugh's with a weapon and intent. Prior to getting there, he called the cops (on himself).
We're not talking about a professional hitman (gets paid) or even an amateur. We're talking about a whack job or, more politely, someone who needs the assistance of a mental health care professional.
In any case, discussing the case in terms of protesting in front of a judge's home is not an issue here. He can do that whether or not there's a protest (it'd probably be harder to succeed with a protest, in fact).
M [111]
First, Congress does not carry out EOs, agencies within the Executive Branch do. If Congress did, I'm pretty sure that would be exactly what a GOP-led Senate/House would have done to Obama and would do to Biden.
Second, defiance of the courts.
The three branches of gov't have pushed and pulled wrt power and decision-making authority throughout the entirety of our nation's history (consider the quote re Lincoln and Dred Scott (S2 [106])).
Heck, Congress hasn't declared war since 1942 (three declarations on 6/4/42: Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania (correct spelling)).
Third, YES, I am talking about outright defiance of the courts. That's the whole point of Checks and Balances. When one branch of gets out of hand, the other two have the means to bring them down. That is, defy the run amok branch!
These abilities are on purpose! They're intended to ensure that no branch would become sole ruler of the nation (obviously, they were most concerned with an out-of-control president, but they generalized the concept). Any two branches have the Constitutional authority and ability to defy a third branch if it tries to be more than co-equal (a subjective concept).
M [116]
Third in a short period of time. Done now.
Defying an unconstitutional law is perfectly fine with me.
I'm even fine with defying constitutionally accepted laws in some cases.
I don't know if you'll get your panties in a twist over that last line, but I'll give you an example.
I remember helping a friend make pot brownies for his mother. She really had trouble with her chemo treatments. We were in a state that didn't allow for medical marijuana.
Doing that today, even in a state that allows it, is a violation of Federal Law.
I'd make the same decision today, without any doubt. I'd look in the mirror afterwards, and smile that I had done a good thing.
Laws are made by people. They are not sacrosanct because we are not perfect.
But if there is one thing I have learned in 30+ years in Public Safety...
Crossing guard wisdom at best. But even if you could get that job, you didn’t do it for 30+ yrs. Please, share with us what you learned from your make believe career!
Right on time ... more or less. :)
I enjoyed the above thinking regarding abortion. I learned things that I hadn't considered on the subject. I think some of them are talking points material. I even plowed through the generally repetitive @m stuff, right up to his first dodge one BABY killers too much. Can't argue if words don't have definitions. Oh well, maybe tomorrow.
I first thought he was a Russian troll and I called himMikhail and inquired what currency he was paid in. At length, I felt the he was so authentic. A genuine angry redneck down in the land of #FloridaMan. I decided this troll was too effective and undoubtedly top Ruble/Euro and it's unlikely the Rooskies would devote such an asset to CW.
Unless they're afraid of him.
Then I though perhaps CW was ghostwriting him to stir the pot. But that's a lot of effort just to drive potential Weigantians away, reducing all that potential financial support.
So I figure that @m is making it worthwhile to put up with him. Whatever...his playground, his rules.
I'll try not to bitch, but this place could be so much more and discussion so much better without this endless repetitive spew and consistent "yanking away the football" ala Don.
Speak2
I know you're quoting but "an assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh..."
You've got to be kidding. Let's not blow this out of proportion.
It's a fact.. That's EXACTLY what it was..
The Democrat scumbag was charged with attempted murder..
A murder of a public official is an assassination...
Ergo, the Democrat scumbag attempted to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh...
These are the facts..
And we don't hear a PEEP of condemnation from Weigantians...
Why is that??
Because ya'all are PERFECTLY OK with it..
In any case, discussing the case in terms of protesting in front of a judge's home is not an issue here. He can do that whether or not there's a protest (it'd probably be harder to succeed with a protest, in fact).
That's factually accurate...
The assassination attempt and the fact that SCOTUS wannabe AG Garland allowing federal law to be broken with impunity are two distinct and separate issues..
We completely agree on that point..
JL,
On this we agree.
Then I am at a loss as to how you can compare the Kansas bleeding incident due to slavery to the abortion issue we have in the here and now...
It sounds like you are saying that abortion today is as important to Democrats as slavery was to Democrats back in the time of the Kansas bleeding incident.
That we shouldn't push the anti-abortion issue as much as we pushed the anti-slavery issue in the past because it might result in another civil war..
Maybe I read your responses wrong.. It's been known to happen..
Where we v disagree is on the questions of what constitutes a person, and which people (or other human-like entities) have the right to own themselves.
Not so much to the "right to own themselves" but the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. and the right NOT to be deprived of those rights without due process...
Yes, we disagree at which point conception becomes life...
I say when a heartbeat is detected, you say when viability occurs.. With the understanding that the viability line is nebulous and can change with technology...
So, we agree that abortion restrictions SHOULD be in place...
We simply disagree as to WHEN those restrictions should kick in..
That's a disagreement I can live with..
Speak2
Third, YES, I am talking about outright defiance of the courts. That's the whole point of Checks and Balances. When one branch of gets out of hand, the other two have the means to bring them down. That is, defy the run amok branch!
Outright defiance IS insurrection.. "Bringing down" (your words) the government IS insurrection..
And it's funny that you only claim the court has "run amok" when they rule AGAINST the Democrat agenda..
Would you say the court "ran amok" when they ruled in Biden's Handlers favor over President Trump's REMAIN IN MEXICO policy??
Did the court "run amok" then??
You see how hypocritical yer position is??
I can name a DOZEN rulings of THIS SCOTUS that you absolutely LOVE and totally and completely support..
It's only when the SCOTUS rules in a manner that you don't like, that the court has "run amok"...
Do you see the complete and utter fallacy of your position??
But let's get back to your wanting to "bring down" a branch of the US Government...
You DO realize that the SCOTUS has the force of law behind it, right??
The "force of law" being every law enforcement agency in the country....
So, ANY "outright defiance" will face the force of law of every law enforcement entity in the United States Of America..
Tell me.. Exactly how is that going to work out for you Democrats??
Speak2
Defying an unconstitutional law is perfectly fine with me.
Here's the thing... YOU don't get to decide what is unconstitutional...
The SCOTUS does...
I'm even fine with defying constitutionally accepted laws in some cases.
That's funny... Because THAT is what the SCOTUS (according to ya'all) is doing...
Defying constitutionally accepted law..
And yet, you definitely aren't "fine" with it..
You are so pissed about it, that you are talking insurrection.. Civil War...
Crossing guard wisdom at best. But even if you could get that job, you didn’t do it for 30+ yrs. Please, share with us what you learned from your make believe career!
My military and LEO and FSO and Security bona fides have been well established.. Long before you polluted Weigantian with your Trump/America hate and your PTDS...
Unlike you who has yet to show a shred of proof of ANY of your claims..
You didn't even know what constitutes assault... :eyeroll:
I remember helping a friend make pot brownies for his mother. She really had trouble with her chemo treatments. We were in a state that didn't allow for medical marijuana.
Doing that today, even in a state that allows it, is a violation of Federal Law.
Do you HONESTLY compare THAT to terrorizing families and CHILDREN in their homes???
SERIOUSLY!!???? :eyeroll:
MC,
Can't argue if words don't have definitions.
Do you mean like Democrats always changing definitions to suit their agenda??
Or maybe you mean like how Democrats can't even define "woman"...
Is THAT what you mean???
I first thought he was a Russian troll and I called himMikhail and inquired what currency he was paid in. At length, I felt the he was so authentic. A genuine angry redneck down in the land of #FloridaMan. I decided this troll was too effective and undoubtedly top Ruble/Euro and it's unlikely the Rooskies would devote such an asset to CW.
First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.
-Union Leader Nicholas Klein, 1914
:D
I'll try not to bitch, but this place could be so much more and discussion so much better without this endless repetitive spew
I have TOLD you how to defeat me...
But you're a Democrat and Democrats always want the easy way, the way where they don't have to do any actual work... :D
You can't defeat me because you simply lack the will to actually fight for what you believe in..
Democrats are lazy and afraid of hard work...
Arizona Democrats promote 'fuck the 4th' event to 'mourn' Supreme Court abortion decision
One Arizona Republican candidate for governor said that the Democratic Party's tweet is an example of the 'modern Democratic Party'
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/arizona-democrats-plan-4th-event-mourn-supreme-court-abortion-decision
This is ya'all's Democrat Party...
Ya'all must be SOOOOO proud. :eyeroll:
EXCLUSIVE: How California's legal cannabis dream became a public health nightmare: It's a class B drug in the UK - but in the US state it's led to spiralling addiction, psychotic illnesses and hospitals facing a deluge of poisonings
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10976437/How-Californias-legal-cannabis-dream-public-health-nightmare.html
Yea!! Let's legalize pot!!
What could POSSIBLY go wrong!?? :eyeroll:
The stoopidity of Democrats NEVER ceases to amaze me..
Yep... Yep... Yep.....
Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that if you legalize drugs it would lead to more overdoses, more ER visits and more addictions..
Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that!!???
Oh wait.. Only those who have more than 2 brain cells to rub together!! :eyeroll:
As Ukraine war bogs down, U.S. assessments face scrutiny
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/as-ukraine-war-bogs-down-u-s-assessments-face-scrutiny/ar-AAZ6SnK
Afghanistan 2.0...
Another gross military failure for Biden's Handlers..
:eyeroll:
Democrats are always long on hysterical BS...
But ALWAYS seems to be short on facts...
Why is that???
Ya'all just HAVE to know it's bad when the owner of WaPo starts slamming Biden's Handlers... :D
Jeff Bezos calls out Joe Biden's latest inflation claim: 'Straight misdirection or a deep misunderstanding'
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jeff-bezos-calls-out-joe-biden-s-latest-inflation-claim-straight-misdirection-or-a-deep-misunderstanding/ar-AAZ8m8L?ocid=&cvid=15ca4f845a4442969abdac9b8359a5a1
From one July Fourth to the next, a steep slide for Biden
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-inflation-biden-covid-politics-7d366e0e3ff52a58150254829a87df38
Oh how the mediocre have fallen, eh?? :D
So...
Does everyone here agree with Speak2??
That Democrats should "bring down" 1/3rd of the United States government??
Yunno.. Insurrection??
Everyone here agree with that??
Energy producers go scorched earth on Biden's gas price tweet with mocking message for 'WH intern'
US energy producers roast Biden for demanding 'companies running gas stations' lower pump prices
Biden urged gas companies on Saturday to realize 'this is a time of war and global peril'
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/u-s-energy-roast-biden-demanding-companies-running-gas-stations-lower-pump-prices
BBBWWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Biden's Handlers = White House Intern :D
First WaPo's owner biatch-slaps Biden's Handlers down and then the Oil Companies get their licks in!!
Hilarious!!!! :D
It's definitely going to be an improvement to see a GOP Congress neuter Biden's Handlers... :D
Jayland Walker shooting: Akron police confront protesters following release of body cam footage
Akron police said Jayland Walker suffered more than 60 gunshot wounds but was unarmed at the time of the shooting
https://www.foxnews.com/us/jayland-walker-shooting-akron-protests
Another perfectly justified police shooting and another protest from BLM con-artists.. :eyeroll:
You have to be so damned precise with that blockquote. :)
Yea, you do... And if you use Bold you have to make sure you put the Blockquote BEFORE the Bold attribute or else everything gets all wanky...
Kick taught me that.. :D
JL,
I'm not going to compromise my OPINION.
Really???
I am ALWAYS ready to change my opinion if the facts warrant it..
Speak2,
You throw around the word hypocrisy a bit too easily. My complaint was the dozen-plus comments you drop all at once. That's the hijacking we're talking about.
There is absolutely NOTHING stopping YOU from dropping a dozen-plus comments yourself...
NO ONE here can hijack ANYTHING without the tacit approval and permission of the community....
That's why I always have to laugh at the accusations of DOMINATION and HI-JACKING... :D It cracks me up that ya'all think that I have so much power over ya'all..
That lil ole me can actually PREVENT ya'all from commenting.. :D
"You do me great honor.."
-Ael t'Rllaillieu, STAR TREK, My Enemy My Ally
As far as the personal stuff, we're all human. That's something we all screw up once in a while.
"I will consider that an apology.. And I will consider that apology"
-Scotty, STAR TREK 90210
Apology accepted... :D
Yea, you do... And if you use Bold you have to make sure you put the Blockquote BEFORE the Bold attribute or else everything gets all wanky...
Kick taught me that.. :D
That's not factually accurate..
Kick taught me the blockquote.. I figured out the BQ before B on my own.. :D
Speak2
Laws are made by people. They are not sacrosanct because we are not perfect.
And yet, YA'ALL wanted Roe V Wade and Democrat Eugenics V Casey laws to be "sacrosanct"...
Untouchable...
In essence you are saying that the laws YOU like are sacrosanct.. The laws you DON'T like (like the laws against baby killing that are and are going to crop up in CIVILIZED states) THOSE laws are NOT sacrosanct...
You see how one can use the word "HYPCORISY" so often to describe Democrats??? :D
I'm just sayin'....
So, can we agree right here and now that Roe V Wade and Democrat Eugenics V Casey was NOT sacrosanct??
Can we at least agree on that???
And, since we're talking about agreeing on things...
Can we agree that, all things being equal, allowing mothers to be able to kill their babies right up until birth is wrong and bad and should not be allowed..
In other words, JL, Liz, Bashi and I ALL agree that there SHOULD be restrictions on baby killing AKA abortion...
Do you agree with that as well??
I promise... You won't die if you agree with me..
JL has done it and he's fine..
Liz did it and she's good too..
Bashi did it and he....??? Well, he is still Bashi, so...
It's not a perfect system.. :D
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6309066046112
From all available facts.... It was a good shoot...
Ladies and Gentlemen of Weigantia...
Tlaib, Squad introduce resolution recognizing 'catastrophe' of Israel's creation
Resolution comes days after Israeli Independence Day
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tlaib-squad-resolution-israel-catastrophe
I give you your Democrat Party.. :eyeroll:
Who Are the Real Insurrectionists?
In truth, “insurrection” has been fueled by the Left since 2015.
https://amgreatness.com/2022/07/03/who-are-the-real-insurrectionists-2/
Damn skippy!!! :D
Who can forget the "largely peaceful protests" chyron with massive burning buildings in the background caused by arson...
:eyeroll:
And the response from Weigantians???
{{ccchhhiiirrrrrrrpppppp}}
TWENTY TWO+ years (collectively) of BLM and AntiFa riots.. Attacking HUNDREDS of government buildings all over the country??
MANY killed, including at least 8 cops.. Hundreds of thousands injured.. BILLIONS of dollars in damages..
And ya'all were completely silent...
Then, we have a SINGLE Right Wing riot in a SINGLE government building at a SINGLE location over the span of a couple hours..
And ya'all lost yer frakin' minds...
Hypocrisy.. It's not a bug in Democrat programming. It's a feature...
“Supporters... You tail, dog, and get in the faces of Trump government officials to the point that they would lose their freedom to even be seen in public!!! And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
-Democrat Mad Maxine Waters
Condemnations from Weigantians???
{{ccchhhiiiiirrrrrppppppppp}}
Democrats LOVE political violence.. As long as it's DEMOCRATS committing the violence against the RIGHT people...
Speak2, you think I use the term HYPOCRISY inaccurately??
The FACTS say otherwise...
Barack Hussein Odumbo declared during a funeral oration for the late Rep. John Lewis that "the filibuster was racist and must end."
But, of course that didn't stop SENATOR Barack Hussein Odumbo from using it to further the Democrat Party agenda and declaring it essential to the democratic process..
How is this NOT hypocrisy???
Of course, we have Chucky Schumer actually threatening 2 US Supreme Court Justices..
Did anyone here condemn Chucky's words and threats??
Of course not..
Political violence is PERFECTLY acceptable to Democrats.. As long as it's committed against the RIGHT people...
Yep yep yep..
ALL the elections that Democrats lose are, according to Democrats, a big lie...
2000, 2004, 2016.... THOSE elections are all "BIG LIE"s...
But then we have an actual fraudulent election with WELL DOCUMENTED cheating..
And then Democrats complain that REAL patriotic Americans fight those results..
Again, I ask... How is this NOT hypocrisy???
But then we have an actual fraudulent election with WELL DOCUMENTED cheating..
Oh, Michale. You know that is nonsense.
You should also know that your comments would be taken far more seriously and provoke far more serious discussion if you would leave nonsense like this out of them ...
Anyways, Happy Fourth of July!
Happy Fourth of July, Chris and all Weigantians - have a fun day!
Juan Williams: Justices lied before Roe v. Wade died
https://thehill.com/opinion/3545382-juan-williams-justices-lied-before-roe-v-wade-died/
Not factually accurate..
Liz,
Oh, Michale. You know that is nonsense.
Nope.. Hunter Biden's Laptop is well documented..
So are Zuckerbucks..
You should also know that your comments would be taken far more seriously and provoke far more serious discussion if you would leave nonsense like this out of them ..
What YOU call "nonsense" are the facts...
Anyways, Happy Fourth of July!
Thank you, Liz.. :D
Whatever.
I've tried. :)
Yes, you did...
But facts are still facts..
And it's a fact that the Hunter Biden laptop issue alone, had it been reported factually and truthfully, would have been enough to swing the election to President Trump...
As it should have been...
[19] 3 police officers, K9 dead after encountering 'pure hell' at wanted man's home...
GREAT job yer doing, Democrats.. :eyeroll:
THIS would have NEVER happened under President Trump's watch...
[168] For 120 days in summer 2020, violent protesters destroyed some $2 billion in property and injured 1,500 police officers in riots that led to over 35 deaths.
Yeah, THIS is what happened under Trump's watch...
And WHO was causing all of it??
Yep.. Democrats..
Thanx Russ..
A PERFECT set-up...
And you walked right into it.. :D
Personally???
I think anyone who attacks an LEO should be executed on the spot...
Word will get around....
Illinois 4th of July parade erupts into chaos after shooting kills 5, injures 16
Police are reportedly patrolling the parade area with rifles
https://www.foxnews.com/us/chaos-erupts-multiple-people-are-shot-4th-july-parade
What *IS* it about Democrats that they simple CAN'T govern competently???
hunter biden's laptop voted twelve thousand times in georgia, twelve thousand in arizona, twenty thou in wisconsin, eighty thousand in pennsylvania and 155,000 in michigan?
that laptop must have been some heck of a technological marvel to accomplish all that.
Chicago's bloody holiday weekend continues: 54 people shot, 7 dead since Friday evening
The youngest shooting victim is just 10 years old
https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicagos-bloody-holiday-weekend-continues-54-people-shot-7-dead-friday-evening
Democrat governance at it's finest.... :eyeroll:
THIS is what strict gun laws gets you...
One of the top murder capitals of the United States.. :eyeroll:
hunter biden's laptop voted twelve thousand times in georgia, twelve thousand in arizona, twenty thou in wisconsin, eighty thousand in pennsylvania and 155,000 in michigan?
that laptop must have been some heck of a technological marvel to accomplish all that.
The facts show that, had Hunter Biden's laptop been reported on factually and truthfully, 17% of Biden voters would have voted for President Trump or stayed home...
That alone would have been enough to give President Trump the election...
And that's just Hunter Biden's laptop..
Had ZuckerBucks not happened, President Trump would have won in a landslide..
Just the facts...
6 week embryo = baby
An fetus can still have a heart beat even if it is missing most of it's brain. It takes longer than 6 weeks before doctors can see that only the brain stem is present in a fetus. According to you, the mother will be forced to carry the brainless baby to full term. The baby doesn't have a brain, and your kind doesn't have a heart and are cowards. Too bad this isn't the yellow brick road.
Ya'all are lucky...
My new diabetes medication is making me feel like crap..
I'm going to bed...
Enjoy ya'all's Michale Free evening.. :D
I'll be back bright and early in the morning...
ccording to you, the mother will be forced to carry the brainless baby to full term.
Nope.. I am on record as stating that exceptions for gross abnormalities is permissible...
But an inconvenient baby (ala Casey Anthony) is not a gross abnormality....
Once again.. yer wrong Russ..
The facts show that, had Hunter Biden's laptop been reported on factually and truthfully, 17% of Biden voters would have voted for President Trump or stayed home...
Blame Rudy for that. They refused to turn over copies of the hard drives for the media to review for themselves until well after the election.
Rudy hoped that the media would just run the story he was pitching without doing their due diligence. No such luck. Not even the right-wing news agencies were willing to run the story.
Main problem is that they could not prove the providence for the laptop. Even those with no law enforcement experience should be able to grasp that unless the chain of evidence can connect Hunter Biden directly to those laptops, then anyone could have dropped them off claiming that they were his. The legally blind shop owner where the laptops ended up said that he could not say under oath that it was Hunter Biden who dropped off the laptops as he could not see his face.
That alone would have been enough to give President Trump the election...
Thank you for finally admitting that Trump did in fact LOSE the election.
Personally???
I think anyone who attacks an LEO should be executed on the spot...
Word will get around....
So the death penalty for those who took part in the failed insurrection on Jan.6? Assault doesn't deserve death, in my opinion; but they are also traitors... so maybe it would be deserved. Surprised you'd take such a strong stance against the failed insurrectionists, but so be it.
Ah, yes pawning off a pathetic attempt to manufacture an October surprise and conspiracy theories based on Zuckerberg's donations neither with ANY back up does not a fact make no matter how many times you repeat the word...
anxiously awaiting CW's july 4th column. hopefully he'll have the time available to write something as epic as the occasion calls for.
talk about adding in some extra pressure, joshua!
biden's laptop voted twelve thousand times in georgia, twelve thousand in arizona, twenty thou in wisconsin, eighty thousand in pennsylvania and 155,000 in michigan?
that laptop must have been some heck of a technological marvel to accomplish all that.
Heh.
Michale,
And it's a fact that the Hunter Biden laptop issue alone, had it been reported factually and truthfully, would have been enough to swing the election to President Trump...
That's some pretty magical thinking there ... where's your proof?
I think the same people who care about that now would have cared about it before the election. Maybe even fewer! Ahem.
Michale
160
Yea, you do... And if you use Bold you have to make sure you put the Blockquote BEFORE the Bold attribute or else everything gets all wanky...
Kick taught me that.. :D
Not factually accurate... another outright lie coming from the right-wing regurgitating rube side of Weigantia.
Michale
163
Yea, you do... And if you use Bold you have to make sure you put the Blockquote BEFORE the Bold attribute or else everything gets all wanky...
Kick taught me that.. :D
That's not factually accurate..
Yes, you're a liar.
Kick taught me the blockquote..
Not factually accurate.
I definitely taught the blockquote to MtnCaddy, and you keep lying repeatedly and claiming it was you. While you may have learned it from reading that post from me to MC, I definitely did NOT teach you the blockquote. :)
I'd really like to know how to do the blockquote thingy ...
Elizabeth Miller
199
I taught MtnCaddy that day he taught us how to get multiple links.
*
Except you don't use the brackets, you use the arrows:
[ =
It's hard to demonstrate because the platform knows it's a code. You can try to demonstrate with spaces, but the platform collapses them and creates the code. :)
The dang platform ate the arrows!
Instead of brackets, use the right and left arrows: <