https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/sarah-huckabee-sanders-claims-god-wanted-donald-trump-to-be-president/news-story/652d822c9d06d8e746ccf55ee274ff3a

Huckabee claims Trump was appointed by God. Scripturally this is correct since God appoints rulers but it has been a long time since anyone claimed to be an anointed king. Trump is about as far from a desirable ruler as you could get, but he might possess qualities that could get the job done, depending upon which job you wanted done. Protecting Israel, I could see him doing that. Facing down bullies, he certainly has done that. Looking after the helpless, jury is still out on that one, but one thing is obvious he is neither the godless Clinton or the Muslim Obama

A person expressed her personal religious opinion. Not the end of the world, but your observations are, I think, pretty accurate. He is certainly far from perfect, but I do think we took a step up. I must admit I sometimes wondered how in the world we ended up choosing between Clinton and Trump.

A person expressed her personal religious opinion. Not the end of the world, but your observations are, I think, pretty accurate. He is certainly far from perfect, but I do think we took a step up. I must admit I sometimes wondered how in the world we ended up choosing between Clinton and Trump.

You don't know, take off your blinders. Trump bullied all the other candidates off the platform, and then to his surprise, he was the last man standing. His ego wouldn't let him say opps! And so he had to go on with it, hoping Hilliary would win, which was the plan, for Trump to be a spoiler for the Republican campaign. He looked like he opposed every one of the demonrat policies, but in reality, he has fiddled at the edges, shouting to the mob about how great he thinks he is

Pretty wild theory with no evidence.

Scripturally this is correct You have answered your own question.

I won't blame God for the actions of humans. Maybe this is the wake up call America needs to keep it real.

Romans 13:1

Maybe this is the wake up call America needs to keep it real.

If you mean waking up to our need to respect and honor God and have faith in His Son, then I'm with you. That would require an abandoning of a number of things ranging from sex outside of marriage to re-embracing traditional marriage and the right of unborn babies to live.


Maybe this is the wake up call America needs to keep it real.

If you mean waking up to our need to respect and honor God and have faith in His Son, then I'm with you. That would require an abandoning of a number of things ranging from sex outside of marriage to re-embracing traditional marriage and the right of unborn babies to live.

Saying it twice won't make it happen, these things are an indication america has lost its soul, but you have many fellow travellers

these things are an indication america has lost its soul,

Well stated.

As to why it is on there twice, I have no idea. Must have been a senior moment.

If you mean waking up to our need to respect and honor God and have faith in His Son, then I'm with you. That would require an abandoning of a number of things ranging from sex outside of marriage to re-embracing traditional marriage and the right of unborn babies to live.
Where is our supposed God-appointed government authority is all of that?


he took a step up
From what or who?

Where is our supposed God-appointed government authority is all of that?

The institution of government is God ordained. The people in those positions, last time I checked, are humans and subject to error. David as king was about as God appointed as it gets, but he made serious blunders.

David finally has been outdone!

David finally has been outdone!

Don't know, there are some things Trump hasn't done. David was a warrior King

Don't know, there are some things Trump hasn't done. David was a warrior King
I was thinking about his transgressions.

On my opinion, God is putting everyone on our own places. And He has His reasons. God sent these rulers on their positions on each of every countries for a wonderful reasons. And it's up to them if they will rule the country with the light of God or with their manly rules.

I was thinking about his transgressions.

Yeah. If only we could have "saint Obama" back.

Yeah. If only we could have "saint Obama" back.
Please list ten of his transgressions.

Please list ten of his transgressions.

Let me see, lying, cheating, taxing

Please list ten of his transgressions.

That is such a funny request. I guess if we can only come up with merely eight, then he must be OK? Is that how it works now? "Oh, it's only eight. You know it has to be 10 for a guy to be truly corrupt. Only six or eight would mean he is only marginally corrupt."

At any rate,

1. Fast and Furious gun running.
2. VA scandal
3. Non response to Benghazi
4. Lying about Benghazi repeatedly.
5. IRS scandal.
6. Pigford scandal.
7. 500 mil wasted on Solyndra.
8. Black Panthers scandal.
9. "I'll have more flexibility once the election is over."
10. AG Lynch meets with B Clinton and Obama takes no action whatsoever.
11. Rosengate.
12. Declining to enforce laws.
13. Refused to hold HC accountable for violating the law with her toy email server.
BONUS: Referred to HC as "the most qualified candidate for president ever", a politically-motivated lie so blatant that even a rock-ribbed Clinton supporter would have blushed.

For your convenience, I listed 13 plus a bonus.

To be clear, I have no problem with people being critical of Trump, but when he is repeatedly criticized for basically the same kinds of things that Obama did, then you have to be ready to be equally critical of Obama. If Trump is a dufus, then Obama was a double-dufus, or at least a dufus and a half. (WW 2 vets will recognize that pun.)

Instead of wasting my time knocking down your post, and it's fallacies and inaccuracies, let's just compare Obama's record, flaws included, with that of the lying cheating dufus. Want to start with the lies? They number a lot more than 13 on any given day just in tweets.

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/169/16967/1696798.gif
https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cache/lw600/169/16970/1697014.jpg

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cache/lw600/169/16964/1696450.jpg

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cache/lw600/169/16965/1696569.jpg
https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/169/16965/1696566.gif
No telling what else the dufus will screw up the rest of this year, let alone the rest of his first term.

When he starts lying about what caused an armed assault that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans, and the lies just happen to help his reelection chances, then come back and talk to me. For that matter, since lying seems to concern you so much, if you can even point to any posts you made at the time referring to him as a "dufus" and being critical of his lying, that would also be nice to see. I suspect you won't because those posts don't exist. For that matter, you won't even be critical of him now.

Might add that posting mindless cartoons doesn't aid your cause.

Naw, back then I was blasting the loony right wing fringe talking points. Like I do now, but from the opposition side of the administration. They are still there if you want to get caught up. Don't like me expressing my feelings on the matter with cartoons? It's my way of sharing.

Naw, back then I was blasting the loony right wing fringe talking points.

Well, at least you are consistent in that regard, but when it comes to being outraged about lying, you are predictably selective. That's why your rants about Trump ring so hollow. As I am fond of saying, it generally just comes down to politics rather than genuine ethics.

This lying cheating dufus in office transcends politics, and borders on immoral criminality. Him and his sycophants.

As I said, oh for the days of Saint Obama.

I would put him on that kind of pedestal, but he done good over all. The dufus lies even when his lips ain't moving.

Tal you really need to get over having more than 50% of the country not agree with you at least once

I would put him on that kind of pedestal, but he done good over all. The dufus lies even when his lips ain't moving.

You would put a repeated liar on a pedestal. Hmm. Politics first, ethics second.

I would put him on that kind of pedestal, but he done good over all. The dufus lies even when his lips ain't moving.

Typo, that should have been wouldn't.


Tal you really need to get over having more than 50% of the country not agree with you at least once

Most voters agreed with me and rather have Hillary, but that darned electoral college picked the dufus, but it's legal so..

Tal- your cartoons are beautifully to the point - every time!

You can measure their effectiveness by how much they are disliked by the other side.

Nice work.

Thanks Athos, I love it when the right wing noise machine has no rebuttal, but it's much more gratifying when their heads explode, because someone dares oppose the flawed logic of the arguments they present.https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/169/16965/1696515.gif

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/169/16965/1696517.gif





Makes my point based in FACTS!

Makes my point based in FACTS!

You must have a different definition of "FACTS" than the rest of the world.

"The greatest tragedy to me isn’t [Trump]. It isn’t that the person supposedly leading our country lacks a single benevolent impulse, that he is impervious to compassion, incapable of nobility, and mortally allergic to simple kindness.

I know that he is just a mirror, and the greatest tragedy is how many Americans he now represents. ~John Pavlovitz

You must have a different definition of "FACTS" than the rest of the world.

I think overall I am in the mainstream of what the facts are by a significant majority in THIS country, depending on the subject of course.


"The greatest tragedy to me isn’t [Trump]. It isn’t that the person supposedly leading our country lacks a single benevolent impulse, that he is impervious to compassion, incapable of nobility, and mortally allergic to simple kindness.

I know that he is just a mirror, and the greatest tragedy is how many Americans he now represents. ~John Pavlovitz

That is a tragedy, that so many support and follow this LYING, CHEATING, DUFUS!

That is a tragedy, that so many support and follow this LYING, CHEATING, DUFUS!


Then it might be time for you to stop ranting and ask yourself why?, What is it about the demonrat agenda they don't like? Is it the the health care plan that is a draconian tax system? Is the the confrontational foriegn policy? Is it the debt? Is it taxation? is it pandering to the AGW wack jobs?

No it's the desperate loonies who hate themselves and everybody else. I hope they are a minority, but they have subverted a political party, and control an agenda that's DESPERATE in my humble opinion. Another election may well diminish their influence though.

Expect more ranting and railing against such views until then!

What is desperate, wanting to build a border wall? Wanting health care without state enforcement? Wanting out of foreign wars? Wanting not to have to pay the levy for AGW?

No, what's desperate is the few controlling the many. The loony right and the agenda they desperately push is the minority if you ask me, and doomed to fail with the dufus as it's champion. What? You thought our Civil War was over because the shooting stopped? No, it continues more civilly, but as noisy as ever. Evolution before your eyes, and quite messy.

No, what's desperate is the few controlling the many. The loony right and the agenda they desperately push is the minority if you ask me, and doomed to fail with the dufus as it's champion. What? You thought our Civil War was over because the shooting stopped? No, it continues more civilly, but as noisy as ever. Evolution before your eyes, and quite messy.

Tal you live in a democracy, although Tom wouldn't agree. This is the nature of democracy, control is handed to the few by means of elections to avoid anarchy. Your nation had a choice before them, and like it or not, they chose Trump. Now some of us cannot understand why they would chose such a person, but obviously to continue the same path wasn't the preferred option. When faced with the choice of the devil you know and the devil you don't know some people won't choose the devil you know, but devil you did choose. For two years you have ranted and now the electorate has neutered him

the facts are by a significant majority in THIS country,

Facts are not determined by a majority vote.


No it's the desperate loonies who hate themselves and everybody else.

Nonsense. It is, at least in part, a response against the imposition of gay marriage, abortion through nine months of pregnancy, a de facto open borders policy, and the purchasing of votes by an endless welfare program.

Tal you live in a democracy, although Tom wouldn't agree. This is the nature of democracy, control is handed to the few by means of elections to avoid anarchy. Your nation had a choice before them, and like it or not, they chose Trump. Now some of us cannot understand why they would chose such a person, but obviously to continue the same path wasn't the preferred option. When faced with the choice of the devil you know and the devil you don't know some people won't choose the devil you know, but devil you did choose. For two years you have ranted and now the electorate has neutered him

Our system has flaws and loopholes, easily exploited by politicians of all parties, and elections every two years offers opportunity for course corrects. Yeah, I'm glad we have an opposition to the dufus sycophants, but I'm still holding out for more opposition, or getting this arsehole kicked out completely.

The great flaw in your system is that all your leaders are not elected at the same time, our Senate also suffers from the same flaw so that government cannot always enact their programs. We however achieve bipartisanship some of the time and we do not suffer the outright obstructionism of the fillabuster. Our senators are strictly time limited in their speeches and this allows the business of government to proceed one way or another. Our cabinet are also elected so they know they must face the electorate and be held to account.

Opposition for opposition sake does not serve the country well

the facts are by a significant majority in THIS country,


Facts are not determined by a majority vote.

Nice try, but my full statement was "
I think overall I am in the mainstream of what the facts are by a significant majority in THIS country, depending on the subject of course.".


No it's the desperate loonies who hate themselves and everybody else.


Nonsense. It is, at least in part, a response against the imposition of gay marriage, abortion through nine months of pregnancy, a de facto open borders policy, and the purchasing of votes by an endless welfare program.

Buying votes through fear, hate, and LIES is okay though?

Buying votes through fear, hate, and LIES is okay though?

Ask your buddy, Mr. Obama, about that. He did a great job with it. You can also ask the woman you voted for.

I can tell you (again) what really bothers me about your positions. You say Trump is a dufus and his supporters are sycophants while seeming to believe that all of you who supported Obama and HC are noble, holy, upstanding citizens. It's that double standard that nauseates me. If you ever decide to get honest about that, then your words would have more of a ring of ethical accuracy. Now we have the democrat governor of Virginia advocating for infanticide and practically every democrat in America completely on board with it. On his worst day, Trump has never come close to sinking that low, but I suspect you will never bring it up. I try not think that your silence is due to political opportunism, but it's hard not to. Maybe you will take this chance to prove me wrong.

"The greatest tragedy to me isn’t [Trump]. It isn’t that the person supposedly leading our country lacks a single benevolent impulse, that he is impervious to compassion, incapable of nobility, and mortally allergic to simple kindness.

I know that he is just a mirror, and the greatest tragedy is how many Americans he now represents. ~John Pavlovitz

Yet another "holier than thouism" by a democrat who no doubt had no problem supporting that noble and benevolent candidate from heaven, Hillary Clinton.

JL, I'm a registered Republican (and have told you that in past threads).

Jeanine Pirro is the one mislabeling it "infanticide." How many interviews has she done with OBs? How many delivery rooms has she been in?

JL, I'm a registered Republican (and have told you that in past threads).


I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the Pavolitz individual.


Jeanine Pirro is the one mislabeling it "infanticide." How many interviews has she done with OBs? How many delivery rooms has she been in?

I have no idea what Pirro said. I read the quote myself and drew my own blindingly obvious conclusion. What on earth do you think he meant?

“If a mother is in labor …the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.”

What kind of discussion do you think they would be having? Who was going to win the Super Bowl???

I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the Pavolitz individual.
You mean Pavlovitz?


I have no idea what Pirro said. I read the quote myself and drew my own blindingly obvious conclusion. What on earth do you think he meant?
Pirro is a she, not a he. On Fox.


“If a mother is in labor …the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.”
Do you have children? If so, were you in the delivery room, or more likely in the case of a non-viable baby, in the operating room?


What kind of discussion do you think they would be having? Who was going to win the Super Bowl???
Oh, that disaster yesterday....

The great flaw in your system is that all your leaders are not elected at the same time, our Senate also suffers from the same flaw so that government cannot always enact their programs. We however achieve bipartisanship some of the time and we do not suffer the outright obstructionism of the fillabuster. Our senators are strictly time limited in their speeches and this allows the business of government to proceed one way or another. Our cabinet are also elected so they know they must face the electorate and be held to account.

Opposition for opposition sake does not serve the country well

I like the system that recognizes that both parties need each other to get things done even though there are a few loopholes on party or another can exploit to their advantage. Half the country is nuts anyway so you don't want too many at a time trying to govern.

Pirro is a she, not a he. On Fox.

Read more carefully. The "he" I used was referring to the governor, not Pirro. I know who she is.


Do you have children? If so, were you in the delivery room, or more likely in the case of a non-viable baby, in the operating room?

Yes, I have children and I was in the delivery room for both of them. I cannot imagine for one second having the non-chalant attitude about allowing an infant to die that you seem to have. Hopefully I'm wrong about that, and you will set me straight. But we certainly do not just stand by and let those "non-viable" children die. If the child is "non-viable" (a comment made up in your head and not from the governor's comments), then what would there be to discuss? And if the child is indeed "non-viable", then it would have become that way because of an abortion attempt. Read the comments in context.

It is really sad to see what sure appears to be your unyielding commitment to walk in lockstep with anything said by an extreme left wing democrat. At some point your republican registration needs to become something more than mere words. It is even sadder to see the complete and total refusal of today's women who refuse to so much as lift a finger in defense of unborn children.

Ask your buddy, Mr. Obama, about that. He did a great job with it. You can also ask the woman you voted for.

I can tell you (again) what really bothers me about your positions. You say Trump is a dufus and his supporters are sycophants while seeming to believe that all of you who supported Obama and HC are noble, holy, upstanding citizens. It's that double standard that nauseates me. If you ever decide to get honest about that, then your words would have more of a ring of ethical accuracy. Now we have the democrat governor of Virginia advocating for infanticide and practically every democrat in America completely on board with it. On his worst day, Trump has never come close to sinking that low, but I suspect you will never bring it up. I try not think that your silence is due to political opportunism, but it's hard not to. Maybe you will take this chance to prove me wrong.

Boy you sure pile on a lot of assumptions but that's no surprise when you have little facts and data but really hard feelings. Maybe stop holding your nose so much would help with that nausea some, but I get that your nose will never be free again as long as the dufus denigrates the white house.

They are making the dufus account for his inauguration money and about time since his charity and schools were such rip offs.

So we just let those "non-viable" children die all the time? If the child is "non-viable" (a comment made up in your head and not from the governor's comments), then what would there be to discuss?
Be pregnant for six or seven months, throw up, have back pains, discover you can't even climb into the bathtub to take a shower (if you sit in the tub, you can't stand up by yourself), can no longer eat favorite foods -- okay, I'll spare you more of a pregnant woman's travails -- then you and I can talk because I'll know you and I are on the same page.

Then, at an eighth month exam, your OB tells you your baby is dead or dying or a CT scan reveals the baby is majorly deformed, then what should that pregnant woman do, especially if her own life is in danger? And, psssst, very few women who've made it to the sixth or seventh or eighth month have no intention of getting an abortion "just because." The "because" would have to be life threatening.

On his worst day, Trump has never come close to sinking that low, but I suspect you will never bring it up. I try not think that your silence is due to political opportunism, but it's hard not to. Maybe you will take this chance to prove me wrong.

I read your reply. Turned out, sadly, that I was wrong in hoping you would prove me wrong. Just more verbage about supposed facts and data, but unwilling to be even an ounce critical of this democrat governor. You should try applying the same standard of judgement to all pols that you apply to Trump. Politics, politics, politics.

Be pregnant for six or seven months, throw up, have back pains, discover you can't even climb into the bathtub to take a shower (if you sit in the tub, you can't stand up by yourself), can no longer eat favorite foods -- okay, I'll spare you more of a pregnant woman's travails. At an eighth month exam, your OB tells you your baby is dead or dying or a CT scan reveals the baby is majorly deformed, then what should that pregnant woman do, especially if her own life is in danger? And, psssst, very few women who've made it to the sixth or seventh month have no intention of getting an abortion "just because." The "because" would have to be life threatening.

Wow. Your commitment to the liberal democrat philosophy of abortion at all costs is so stringent that you cannot even address the governor's comments. You have to revert to a long litany of the difficulties of pregnancy. Let me ask you two questions and see if you will answer them.

If it is OK to abort (kill) a completely viable fetus at eight months because you have discovered it is deformed, then would it be OK to kill the baby a week after delivery for the same reason? If not, then why not?

Is it OK for a doctor to perform an abortion for any and all reasons in the final trimester when the baby is viable and able to feel pain? If not, then will you stand against the new law in New York and oppose the governor's support of the proposed law in Virginia?

And please don't go running off a rabbit trail. Just simply give direct answers.

If it is OK to abort (kill) a completely viable fetus at eight months because you have discovered it is deformed, then would it be OK to kill the baby a week after delivery for the same reason? If not, then why not?
Lemme see. You skipped over my question and didn't answer. You first.


Is it OK for a doctor to perform an abortion for any and all reasons in the final trimester when the baby is viable and able to feel pain?
Another jump over my question that you refuse to answer. What would YOU do about this baby?


If not, then will you stand against the new law in New York and oppose the governor's support of the proposed law in Virginia.
Have you read the NY law?

Then, at an eighth month exam, your OB tells you your baby is dead or dying or a CT scan reveals the baby is majorly deformed, then what should that pregnant woman do, especially if her own life is in danger?

I am happy to answer your question, even though I suspect you will not answer either of mine. At eight months, if the baby is dead, then you have no choice. However, with a live child, and with the only alternative being to kill the baby, you give birth. No one ever said life would be easy, but once pregnant, you have a commitment to life. An abortion at this point does not preserve the mother's life since she still would have to give birth to a dead baby. Unless, of course, you are suggesting the doctor cut the baby into pieces, an idea so grisly that surely a registered republican would recoil in horror at the mere thought.

OK. Your turn.

I read your reply. Turned out, sadly, that I was wrong in hoping you would prove me wrong. Just more verbage about supposed facts and data, but unwilling to be even an ounce critical of this democrat governor. You should try applying the same standard of judgement to all pols that you apply to Trump. Politics, politics, politics.

From what I read such decisions are between the doctor and the family, was the racially insensitive governor's position and really weird you ONLY comment on the abortion stuff given his calls for resignation over an actions 35 years ago that had nothing to do with abortions. I am against abortions personally and that's my business, but females of means and education have them all the time without anyone's knowledge and that their business. It's the poor females who get the ire of you bible thumpers, yet when the kid arrives you're like a dead beat dad and leave them on their own and berate anybody who thinks they should be helped. HYPOCRISY from the religious crowd.

However, with a live child, and with the only alternative being to kill the baby, you give birth. No one ever said life would be easy, but once pregnant, you have a commitment to life.
So we watch the horribly deformed baby die.

An abortion at this point does not preserve the mother's life since she still would have to give birth to a dead baby. Unless, of course, you are suggesting the doctor cut the baby into pieces
I'm guessing a c-section would be done. Why would the doctor cut up a dead baby? Or even a living baby? That's not how it's done. (Are you reading Stephen King again???)

Just as I figured, WG. You will not answer the questions. I suppose it is because it might require you to actually think about what you believe, and that would require courage.


I'm guessing a c-section would be done. Why would the doctor cut up a dead baby? Or even a living baby? That's not how it's done. (Are you reading Stephen King again???)

Actually, that is exactly how it is done in second trimester abortions. They cut up and remove a living baby. It's called dilation and evacuation. You don't know the subject, and that is part of the problem. You find it much easier to simply bury your head in the sand and remain ignorant, and that is appalling.


I am against abortions personally and that's my business,
Why are you personally against abortions, Tal?

Honestly, as two confessing Christians, I cannot understand how you two are so content to stand on the sidelines and do nothing. I guess that is necessary for you to stick to your liberal political philosophy. Politics above ethics. If you took a genuine position against abortion, you might have to actually be critical of Obama or HC, and you are unwilling to even consider doing that. What a tragedy.

Yes, WG. I know you are a registered republican. I frequently don't agree with Tal, but he will at least put his views out there and answer questions. WG, your evasiveness get frustrating. Answer the questions. Put your beliefs on the line for examination.

https://scontent.fmem1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51127033_2466743426687086_1770886110734450688_n.jp g?_nc_cat=102&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-2.fna&oh=031e13421e92cb9a8a842532b0abc633&oe=5CFE60EB

Abortion is unnecessary in today's society. There are other options that are healthier and safer, just ask any female that has means and resources. I cannot get pregnant, nor do I ascribe to any religion, but I think any woman has a right to plan there own family, and make their own choices, within very reasonable limits, one being early in the first trimester, cases of rape or incest, and medical considerations for the health of the mother. Science has evolved and given us many options, and indeed the data has shown abortions falling steadily, especially among young teens. I think we should evolve and use those new options. The only women that those choices can be taken away from are the poor who are neither as aware of the options, or cannot afford them as indeed many poor females have support for their decisions and that matters.

I must point out though JL, the notion of choice is not just a democrat or liberal thang and many church going conservative republicans are prochoice, and pro gay marriage also. Been that way for a long time and likely always will be. You would do well I think to get facts and review data rather than presume assume and pigeon hole people into neat categories for judgement. So, I ain't buying and totally reject the notion that God appoints our leaders. Just saying.

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2F169%2F16974%2F1697455.gif&t=1549371989&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1c93-c90001013600&sig=._25Czpkiky0MKgTSoDGvg--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/nickanderson/s-2173078?ezine=641)

. So, I ain't buying and totally reject the notion that God appoints our leaders. Just saying.

So your Obama wasn't God appointed, well I understand that, and Hilliary certainly wasn't.

Why is it you contradict Scripture, do you only believe what you want to believe?

Romans 13.1

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

I don't consider any bible the word of God, but the words of ancient man, though ALL have wisdoms and insights for the order of man that can apply today, and it's flawed, as the humans that wrote it, and those that read it, and those that try to understand it.

My personal relationship with a God that I understand requires no book of instruction, but if that's what you need then go for it. You should know by now you have to do more than quote scripture to convince me of anything. As for the dufus being the cohead of our government, bound to happen sooner or later and before him we had Nixon so turds can ascend to high office, and be flushed just as fast.

Doesn't bother me a bit what you beleive Clete, or JL or anybody else. You can beleive whatever you want it's all good to me...well for the most part anyway.

Abortion is unnecessary in today's society. There are other options that are healthier and safer, just ask any female that has means and resources. I cannot get pregnant, nor do I ascribe to any religion, but I think any woman has a right to plan there own family, and make their own choices, within very reasonable limits, one being early in the first trimester, cases of rape or incest, and medical considerations for the health of the mother. Science has evolved and given us many options, and indeed the data has shown abortions falling steadily, especially among young teens. I think we should evolve and use those new options. The only women that those choices can be taken away from are the poor who are neither as aware of the options, or cannot afford them as indeed many poor females have support for their decisions and that matters.

I must point out though JL, the notion of choice is not just a democrat or liberal thang and many church going conservative republicans are prochoice, and pro gay marriage also. Been that way for a long time and likely always will be. You would do well I think to get facts and review data rather than presume assume and pigeon hole people into neat categories for judgement. So, I ain't buying and totally reject the notion that God appoints our leaders. Just saying.
A thousand greenies!

Just as I figured, WG. You will not answer the questions. I suppose it is because it might require you to actually think about what you believe, and that would require courage.
I thought you said you're a Christian. If you are, why the insults and shaming?

I thought you said you're a Christian. If you are, why the insults and shaming?

Why not answer the questions? What are you afraid of?

I don't mean to be ugly to you. I guess you have your reasons for your consistent evasiveness. I have beliefs that I am not only unafraid to defend, but even eager to do so, so I guess I think everyone is that way, but evidently not. Honestly, I don't like discussing things with you because of that never-ending unwillingness to be honest and courageous enough to really state your beliefs openly.

Well, you won't answer the questions, so that's it. I think you won't because you know there are no good answers to those questions. When it comes down to how to kill a third trimester baby, it leaves most honest people speechless. It is horrifying.

I thought you said you're a Christian. If you are, why the insults and shaming?


A thousand greenies!

Why not answer the questions? What are you afraid of?
Please restate the questions you want answered. I've lost track of them in all this verbiage.


I don't mean to be ugly to you. I guess you have your reasons for your consistent evasiveness. I have beliefs that I am not only unafraid to defend, but even eager to do so, so I guess I think everyone is that way, but evidently not. Honestly, I don't like discussing things with you because of that never-ending unwillingness to be honest and courageous enough to really state your beliefs openly.
Wow! More shaming!


Well, you won't answer the questions, so that's it. I think you won't because you know there are no good answers to those questions. When it comes down to how to kill a third trimester baby, it leaves most honest people speechless. It is horrifying.
Our furnace stopped this afternoon, so my husband and I have been a bit busy. There's freezing rain/sleet headed this way, and we wanted to have heat in the house. Thanks for another bout of shaming.

If it is OK to abort (kill) a living fetus at eight months because you have discovered it is deformed, then would it be OK to kill the baby a week after delivery for the same reason? If not, then why not?

Is it OK for a doctor to perform an abortion for any and all reasons in the final trimester when the baby is viable and able to feel pain? If not, then will you stand against the new law in New York and oppose the governor's support of the proposed law in Virginia?

If it is OK to abort (kill) a living fetus at eight months because you have discovered it is deformed, then would it be OK to kill the baby a week after delivery for the same reason? If not, then why not?
If it is my baby, I would expect to undergo a c-section (depending on the deformity). My pediatrics team would do what they could early on to first make the baby comfortable (if that's an issue) and figure out, with my and my husband's input, what to do immediately to begin to repair or correct the baby's physical problems and what can be done in the future -- or perhaps the disability is so major that just keeping the baby as comfortable as possible will be all that can be done. Nowadays, with medical technology as advanced as it is, there is usually something can be done to improve the situation.


Is it OK for a doctor to perform an abortion for any and all reasons in the final trimester when the baby is viable and able to feel pain? If not, then will you stand against the new law in New York and oppose the governor's support of the proposed law in Virginia?
If the mother's life is at serious risk, then the (at risk) baby may have to be sacrificed as humanely as possible. Medical science has advanced enough that this situation occurs probably very infrequently.

Please read for yourself what that NY law actually says and stop listening to those who have an agenda.

You didn't answer either question.

1. Is it OK to kill a fetus at eight months because it is deformed?

2. Is it OK for a doctor to perform a third trimester abortion for any reason?

The questions are simple. Didn't say your baby. Didn't say the mother's life was at risk. Is vague your maiden name??

You didn't answer either question.

1. Is it OK to kill a fetus at eight months because it is deformed?

2. Is it OK for a doctor to perform a third trimester abortion for any reason?

The questions are simple. Didn't say your baby. Didn't say the mother's life was at risk. Is vague your maiden name??
Your questions are not black or white, and shouldn't demand answers that are yes or no. Okay, I'll do it your way.
1. No.
2. Yes.

Your questions are not black or white, and shouldn't demand answers that are yes or no. Okay, I'll do it your way.
1. No.
2. Yes.

How can you rule out abortions for deformities (question 1) but then say it is OK to have a third trimester abortion for any reason?? Wouldn't that automatically make the answer to question 1 "yes"?

If you agree with abortions for any reason in trimester three, you are saying that a baby can be killed for being the wrong gender, wrong race, not ideal physically, mother simply changed her mind because she got mad at her boyfriend, of any one of dozens of other hideous ideas.

Oh well. At least you did answer the questions. It is not possible to put into words how glad I am that I do not share your views, especially with the knowledge of how third trimester abortions are performed. I am just beyond amazed that you would be in agreement with it, but that is your decision.



Dilation and Extraction: a surgical abortion procedure used to terminate a pregnancy after 21 weeks of gestation. This procedure is also known as D & X, Intact D & X, Intrauterine Cranial Decompression and Partial Birth Abortion."

You do realize that you cannot answer "no" to question 1 and then answer "yes" to question 2??
Now you're lecturing me on how I answered your poorly worded questions? More shaming?

Not lecturing but questioning. The answer to 1 cannot be no and then answer 2 yes. At least not and be consistent in your thinking. It is a plain contradiction.

Well, if you are comfortable with your position, I don't know what else to say. You believe killing babies is OK up to and including the ninth month. I just don't know what else to say. At least your belief on the matter is plain. I'm just glad to Almighty God I don't have to live with that belief in my own heart. It is heart breaking to me and the greatest tragedy of our day that we will not step up and defend those who absolutely cannot defend themselves. What a cowardly culture we have become.

Arguing this in an insane world gets nowhere. The rights of women have become a religious belief, they know no God but themselves, something akin to the demonrats

they know no God but themselves

I fear that has become true for many, men and women alike. Another good post.

Not lecturing but questioning. The answer to 1 cannot be no and then answer 2 yes. At least not and be consistent in your thinking. It is a plain contradiction.
The question is badly stated. It's a setup. Now, why can't you ask me how it's poorly worded and how could it be better stated? No, of course you won't.

You didn't answer either question.

1. Is it OK to kill a fetus at eight months because it is deformed?

2. Is it OK for a doctor to perform a third trimester abortion for any reason?

The questions are simple. Didn't say your baby. Didn't say the mother's life was at risk. Is vague your maiden name??

So how many cases do we have for those? You're just like the dufus, exaggerating a problem to make a crisis you use for an excuse to box people into a corner so you can blast them. Your hypothetical questions are not simple at all. Your tactics reminds me of the kooks who shoved gross pictures of lungs after asking if you smoked back in the day. Forgive my rudeness if you are not intentionally mocking the many people and their families faced with really tough medical choices for loved ones both babies and elders with no resources or knowledge.

How the hell would you care for an infant that had immediate special needs, with no resources and no job or education? Don't answer because you would holler for help until you could do better. Hope someone is there for you, I would hope someone is there for anybody and everybody who needs that kind of help, but I seriously doubt reasonable good humans would fall into the situation of what your questions elude too.

Bet you got no evidence of it, anecdotes MAYBE, or lies by the anti crowd. But if you aren't there to help for the long term care and expenses, then you should probably mind your own business. I get you're against abortions, so am I but once there is conception its all hands on deck to help people through it, and to late to condemn. To answer your question, helps starts with conception and facts to make reasonable choices and for that you need a good doctor from the start to care for mom and baby, and NOT a bible thumping blame gamer. Your questions make no sense without data, and FACTS.

END OF RANT... for now.

Tal, listen to the Virginia governor's press conference and you will understand the questions. There are several thousand third trimester abortions in the U.S. every year, so they are not rare. Yes, the long term care of a child with serious mental/physical problems is difficult, but killing the baby is not the answer. I regret that seems to be your position. If we are going to kill the baby in the womb, then why not kill the baby post birth?

WG, the questions weren't the problem, your answers were. They were poorly thought out, and rather than acknowledge that, you want to change the direction of the conversation. I find that true of most liberals. You don't really think through the implications of what you believe. The question concerning third trimester abortions is a major question in the national abortion debate and was very simply and clearly worded. The first question actually came from a comment you made about thirty posts ago: "a CT scan reveals the baby is majorly deformed, then what should that pregnant woman do?"

Again, I'm glad I don't have that one on my conscience. There are many, many women in the world who have had an abortion and never get over it emotionally. They are also victims of the abortion scam.

I will be happy to hear your recommendations on how to better word the questions. I would be even happier to see you explain how you can answer question 1 "no" and then answer question 2 "yes".

END OF RANT... for now.

Oh how we wish it were so, stop defending the indefensible Tal

Tal, listen to the Virginia governor's press conference and you will understand the questions. There are several thousand third trimester abortions in the U.S. every year, so they are not rare. Yes, the long term care of a child with serious mental/physical problems is difficult, but killing the baby is not the answer. I regret that seems to be your position. If we are going to kill the baby in the womb, then why not kill the baby post birth?

That's not my position nor did Latham say it was his. The missing FACT here is the viability of the infant due to medical reasons. Read the actual legislation. It doesn't call for the gross procedure you described, but for a still birth. In these cases the doctor and the family have to make that decision not a bible thumper. Maybe YOU a fellow of means can think it merely difficult but for others with less resources and high hopes of a good outcome that ain't going to happen. What's your solution for such a family faced with bad options?



WG, the questions weren't the problem, your answers were. They were poorly thought out, and rather than acknowledge that, you want to change the direction of the conversation. I find that true of most liberals. You don't really think through the implications of what you believe. The question concerning third trimester abortions is a major question in the national abortion debate and was very simply and clearly worded. The first question actually came from a comment you made about thirty posts ago: "a CT scan reveals the baby is majorly deformed, then what should that pregnant woman do?"

I seemed to have missed your simple answer to an emotion complex question. Please refresh my memory with your answer.



Again, I'm glad I don't have that one on my conscience. There are many, many women in the world who have had an abortion and never get over it emotionally. They are also victims of the abortion scam.

The problem I have with pro-lifers is you want abortions illegal, but provide no love, support, or services for those children you wish to force others to have. The most despicable part is your targets are poor women without means or resources, and you don't want to give that either. It would seem to me you would encourage young women to seek and get the best medical care they can get and proper guidance to properly raise the baby through maturity. You don't, instead many like yourself advocate marry the bums and stay off the public dole that takes your money and gives to them. You have no intention of stepping up and following through, so abandonment would be the word I use that exposes your harsh hypocrisy of FORCING your Christian "VALUES", since birth is the beginning of the journey of life.

If life is as sacred as you say doesn't it behoove you to take responsibility and step up and support that baby to maturity? No you cannot force anything on educated females who don't need your help to make their decisions, just the ones with no means can you bully, harass, seek to control. I got no thing against you pro lifers, but the half a$$ way you go about is incompetent hypocrisy and willful ignorance of the facts of the human condition.

Evolve a little why don't you and at least be truthful about your intentions, which apparently is cry beetch and moan about the lack of morality according to YOU.


I will be happy to hear your recommendations on how to better word the questions. I would be even happier to see you explain how you can answer question 1 "no" and then answer question 2 "yes".

It doesn't call for the gross procedure you described, but for a still birth

You do realize that "still born" is a euphemism for the delivery of a dead baby? And for the baby to be dead in the context of abortion, it has to be killed prior to delivery. How do you suppose that happens?? For that matter, does it even bother you a little that someone has to do something to kill the baby first? Suppose you are the doctor and you are told, "The mother has decided she does not want this baby, so we need to kill it before it is delivered." How would you go about doing that, and what kind of grisly monster would you become in doing so?


If life is as sacred as you say doesn't it behoove you to take responsibility and step up and support that baby to maturity? No you cannot force anything on educated females who don't need your help to make their decisions, just the ones with no means can you bully, harass, seek to control. I got no thing against you pro lifers, but the half a$$ way you go about is incompetent hypocrisy and willful ignorance of the facts of the human condition.

If it makes you feel better to justify the killing of unborn babies because, in your incorrect view, pro-lifers don't care about these children, then that is your right. However, if you will get out a little, you will find that nearly all pregnancy support centers are run and financed by pro-lifers and they do great work in supporting these moms both before and after birth, so your accusation is ridiculous. To state that pro-lifers "provide no love, support, or services for those children you wish to force others to have," is an outrageous lie. Sorry, but that is the correct term.

In another age, when people actually thought before they spoke, it would have been suggested that a return to sex within marriage would solve about 95% of this problem. But in our culture, where sex is worshiped as god, then we cannot be bothered with the inconvenience of honoring life.

In another age people had sex outside of marriage and used methods to avoid pregnancy, left or had a child in secret, and gave it away, or induced a miscarriage. So what do you do about the women with means who has the good sense to visit her OBY/GYN to prevent unwanted pregnancies even when married?


Oh how we wish it were so, stop defending the indefensible Tal

Indefensible is FORCING your value system on others.

So what do you do about the women with means who has the good sense to visit her OBY/GYN to prevent unwanted pregnancies even when married?

Why would I care? If they want to avoid pregnancy, then fine with me.

I'd still love to know why you think it is all right to kill a baby in the womb?

Science has evolved and the need for abortions have gone down steadily year after year especially among teens. Is that not a good thing?


Why would I care? If they want to avoid pregnancy, then fine with me.

I'd still love to know why you think it is all right to kill a baby in the womb?

That's not killing a baby in the womb?

That's not killing a baby in the womb?

I don't know what you are referring to.

Of course you don't.

http://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/medical-abortions/

No, I won't take your link and read another useless article. State your case if you have one.

If you are trying to say that not becoming pregnant is somehow the same as killing a baby in the womb, then that is such an incredibly ludicrous argument that I can only hope that is not what you meant.

Now if you are referring to such things as the "morning after pill", or devices intended to prevent implantation, then we have something to talk about.

I'd still like to hear why you have concluded it is OK to kill a baby as long as it is still in the womb.

Medical abortion procedures are available for terminating a pregnancy during the early weeks of the first trimester (http://americanpregnancy.org/while-pregnant/first-trimester/).For women seeking a medical abortion procedure, a sonogram (http://americanpregnancy.org/prenatal-testing/ultrasound/) is recommended to determine if the pregnancy is viable (uterine, non-ectopic pregnancy) and for accurate pregnancy dating.

Methotrexate & Misoprostol (MTX)

MTX is a medical abortion procedure used up to the first 7 weeks (49 days of pregnancy). This procedure is not as commonly used as in the past because of the availability of mifepristone.



Methotrexate is given orally or by injection during the first office visit.
Antibiotics are also given in order to prevent infection.
Misoprostol tablets are given orally or inserted vaginally about 3 to 7 days later. This can be done at home.
This procedure will usually trigger contractions and expel the fetus. The process may take a few hours or as long as a few days.
A physical exam is given a week later to ensure that the abortion procedure is complete and to check for complications.


​
Methotrexate is primarily used in the treatment of cancer and rheumatoid arthritis because it attacks the most rapidly growing cells in the body. In the case of abortion, it causes the fetus and placenta to separate from the lining of the uterus. Using the drug for this purpose is not approved by the FDA.

I'd still like to hear why you have concluded it is OK to kill a baby as long as it is still in the womb.
What would you suggest? A woman just doesn’t skip down to her doctor for a pleasure abortion or maybe because her clothes don't fit well anymore.

By Dr. Jen Gunter (I am an OB/GYN board certified in two countries. I did a 5 year residency in which I trained to do abortion up to about 24-25 weeks. I developed other skills after residency out of necessity. I have been an OB/GYN for 28 years and, including my residency, I provided abortion services for 16 of those years. I have not provided abortion services for the past 13 years.

For 3-4 of the 6 years that I practiced in Kansas there was no gestational age limit. I could let you put two and two together, but as there is so much abortion misinformation I’m going to spell it out. That means I could have done an abortion at any gestational age — even right up to the due date.

No one ever called me to terminate a healthy pregnancy or even a pregnancy with minor abnormalities. First of all, with no indication insurance won’t pay so it is $20k cash.)

Who has abortions at 24 weeks and beyond?

Women who are very ill around 24 weeks where the fetus is not expected to survive and delivery is needed and avoiding a c-section (for her own health's sake) is preferable. It may also be when there are fetal anomalies and a vaginal delivery is not possible, or, when it is.

Let me explain.

High blood pressure in pregnancy can lead to severe maternal and fetal health issues. It can require a very premature delivery to save the life of the mother. A good example is a woman at 26 weeks who needs to be delivered for her blood pressure — that is the cure, delivery. However, because of her high-blood pressure fetal development has been affected and her fetus is estimated to weigh 300 g, which means it can not live after delivery. She will be offered an abortion if there is a skilled provider. This is safer for her and her uterus than a delivery.

A lethal birth defect at 32 weeks. The plan is to let the fetus succumb after delivery. The pregnancy has anencephaly or any one of a thousand other catastrophic chromosomal or cellular collisions that can conspire against you in pregnancy. The pregnant person thought they could make it to their due date, but they just can’t take it anymore. Or maybe their blood pressure is sneaking up and the idea of risking their life for a non viable pregnancy is not what they want or their doctors recommend. They choose an induction of labor, which in this situation is an abortion because the pregnancy is being terminated.

Triploidy or mirror syndrome or a massive cystic hygroma or any other birth defect that can affect how the fetus is positioned and how it molds and bends to deliver vaginally. If you don’t know what these terms mean, then you are not qualified to discuss abortion at or after 24 weeks, so stop.

Now.

In these situations (tripoidy, mirror syndrome etc.) the fetus can be lying lengthwise (not head or buttocks down) so labor is not an option. A c-section is needed for delivery. Maybe there are also health reasons a c-section is less than ideal. Maybe the pregnant person just doesn’t want a c-section for a non-viable pregnancy. If a person who is skilled to do a D & X is available, the c-section can be avoided.

There are, of course, other cases. I tweeted about the above scenarios, but realized everyone who wasn’t a well-trained OB/GYN wouldn’t understand. So, now you know why we “just can’t do a c-section” in these cases — or if we did why a c-section would STILL BE AN ABORTION.

So what does that have to do with wealthy women using birth control to avoid becoming pregnant? That was the origin of this question and it was posed by you. You do realize that the procedure above is only used AFTER a women is pregnant?

Still waiting to hear why you believe it is OK to kill a baby in the womb. I mean if you have a belief, then stand up and defend it. Don't just ignore it.

That sort of was my point, as your attitude and beliefs only extend to poor women after they are pregnant, but have nothing to say about women of means, who use they above posted procedure after they are pregnant. Please explain the difference.

What would you suggest? There are only two options. Kill the baby or give birth. That being the case, there is only one option in my opinion and that is to give birth. Which would you suggest? BTW, if the question is worded poorly, it's on you. Your question.


A woman just doesn’t skip down to her doctor for a pleasure abortion or maybe because her clothes don't fit well anymore.

Practically all abortions are elective, meaning the woman had no compelling medical reason to have the abortion. I wouldn't suggest it is an easy decision. Many of them are agonizing. That's life. The men who went ashore on D-Day didn't just "skip down" to France for a holiday. It was a tough decision but the right decision.

Guys, abortion is the destruction of a human life. There is no other way to see it. That doesn't mean much to you and I get that, but it means something to me.

That sort of was my point, as your attitude and beliefs only extend to poor women after they are pregnant, but have nothing to say about women of means, who use they above posted procedure after they are pregnant. Please explain the difference.

There is only one person on this thread who has made that distinction and that is you. Don't put your problems on me. I feel the same about both groups and have not said a word to the contrary. If you want to discuss this, it would be good if you would separate your imaginings from what has actually been posted.

You can always tell when someone has run out of truth. They resort to making things up.

Practically all abortions are elective, meaning the woman had no compelling medical reason to have the abortion.
That is NOT true!!!! Please read the comments I posted about this by Dr. Gunter.


There are only two options. Kill the baby or give birth.
Again, please read Dr. Gunter's comments about this.

Sorry, but it is true. In Florida, for instance, 98% were for "personal choice". Now I understand that "personal choice" does not equate with "easy choice", but the point is that they are not medically necessary.

Reasons given for having abortions in the United States (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html)

I have no idea where your comments by Dr. Gunter are, but if the doc can come up with a third result for an abortion other than a delivered baby or a dead baby, I'd love to know what it is.

I really think you know what the truth is, but you just don't like it.

Sorry, but it is true. In Florida, for instance, 98% were for "personal choice".

Reasons given for having abortions in the United States (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html)
I'm sure I could come up with stats that will belie yours.


I have no ideas where your comments by Dr. Gunter are, but if the doc can come up with a third result for an abortion other than a delivered baby or a dead baby, I'd love to know what it is.

I really think you know what the truth is, but you just don't like it.
You aren't keeping up. Scroll back to my post that's two before this one. It's not far away. It starts out with "What would you suggest?" Or to make it easier for you to find, I could repost it. (How does it feel to be talked down to?)

"a third result for an abortion"??? That's not the topic in dispute!

I'm sure I could come up with stats that will belie yours.

I'd love to see them.

I read your quote from the doc. You do realize that anecdotal evidence is not considered nearly so valuable as statistics. It could certainly be argued that Gunter had a vested interest in justifying what he/she had been doing for five years.


If a person who is skilled to do a D & X is available, the c-section can be avoided.


Have you ever read a description of a D & X abortion? Just so you will know what your beloved doctor has been doing, here it is. "The abortion practitioner instrumentally reaches into the uterus, grasps the fetus' feet, and pulls the feet down into the cervix. The reason this is done is not as a medical necessity, but to avoid actually birthing the baby. If the baby were fully born, killing it would be considered murder. The fetus is then pulled down the birth canal until it has been entirely birthed except the head. Surgical scissors are forced into the base of the fetal skull while the fetus is lodged in the birth canal. This blind procedure risks maternal injury from laceration of the uterus or cervix by the scissors and could result in severe bleeding and the threat of shock or even maternal death. A suction apparatus is introduced into the hole in the base of the skull and the fetus' brains are removed through aspiration. The baby is then born dead."

I guess that is fine with you. It is not with me.

As to the third option not being the topic in dispute, this is from your post a little earlier. It sure seemed that Doctor Gunter was going to settle that issue. You can phrase it any way you want, but the only way to have an abortion is to kill the baby. You think that is excusable. Well, in some extremely rare cases it is, but for the other 99% I can't see it.


There are only two options. Kill the baby or give birth.


Again, please read Dr. Gunter's comments about this.

I guess that is fine with you. It is not with me.
As the good doctor explained (you musta skipped over that part),"In these situations (tripoidy, mirror syndrome etc.) the fetus can be lying lengthwise (not head or buttocks down) so labor is not an option," thus the dismemberment that you abhor. It isn't done "just because" and "for gits and shiggles."

From webmd:

Late-Term Abortion: Dilation and ExtractionIf you’re having an abortion further along in your pregnancy, you may have to find a specialized, experienced provider to do a dilation and extraction procedure, or D&X. This is a procedure that doctors usually reserve for when there is a serious problem with the fetus (https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/default.htm) or medical complications related to the mother.

So it is your position that it is much better to kill and dismember the baby than to perform a C-section?? Wow.

At any rate, according to your doc, that is not what happens. The article goes on to say, "In these situations (tripoidy, mirror syndrome etc.) the fetus can be lying lengthwise (not head or buttocks down) so labor is not an option. A c-section is needed for delivery. Maybe there are also health reasons a c-section is less than ideal. Maybe the pregnant person just doesn’t want a c-section for a non-viable pregnancy. If a person who is skilled to do a D & X is available (my emphasis), the c-section can be avoided.

When we have reached the place of suctioning out a baby's brain, then I'm not sure what else can be said.

I really cannot figure out what you are advocating for. You said abortion for all reasons in the third trimester, which amounts to unlimited abortion. It is hard for me to fathom how anyone who has any knowledge at all of God could have such a position. Is that what you are after?

So it is your position that it is much better to kill and dismember the baby than to perform a C-section?? Wow.
No, again you don't read. I suspect you "spot-read" what appeals to you for future arguing, twist the information you are given, and skip over the rest that doesn't fit on your agenda.

I guess I'll have to bow to all your experience with and knowledge of abortions. Or you and I will have to meet for pie and coffee someday.

Uhm... you wrote it.


thus the dismemberment that you abhor. It isn't done "just because" and "for gits and shiggles."


Or you and I will have to meet for pie and coffee someday.

I would fear for my life! (<:

remember (and it wasn't that long ago) when the Dems said that they wanted abortion safe ,legal ,and rare ? Now I guess they mean that applies when a baby is born alive after a botched abortion or when the baby is ready to be born. il duce Cuomo signed a NY abortion bill that legalizes it through the entire pregnancy ...and the Dems in NY went into joyous celebration.
Northam of Virginia signed a law allowing new-borns to be wacked .The Senate Dems blocked a unanimous consent that would protect newborn babies from that fate . Late term abortions were supposed to be exception case where the life of the mother was at risk. What the Dems have done is codify into law the practices of Kermit Gosnell .
New York’s law authorizes the destruction of a 39 week old human being, with fingernails, hair and a distinctive face. Who can say this human being is not worth protecting? And if a life in the womb is not worth protecting, what about a life outside the womb?
Under the new law ,a child born alive in a botched procedure isn’t protected.
If the baby survives the abortion, as sometimes happens, no problem. The baby can be left alone, neglected to die.
The new law says health care practitioners that are not physicians may also terminate the child within the womb. It removes abortion from New York’s state criminal code, meaning if a baby in utero was to die from an assault on a woman there could be no severe prosecution. Furthermore, the New York law allows young girls of every age to have an abortion without parental consent.
After signing the legislation ,il duce Cuomo ordered the Freedom Tower spire, the Tappan Zee Bridge , the Kosciuszko Bridge, and the Alfred E. Smith Building, to be lit up in celebratory pink.

New York’s law is a terrible affront to the dignity of human life. If we can kill a baby in the womb, early in it's development, what’s to stop it's killing at any stage, including after birth?

If we can kill a baby in the womb, early in its development, what’s to stop its killing at any stage, including after birth?
...especially those children at the Texas-Mexico border -- and the U.S. babies whose parents can't afford them.

of course you have no evidence that is happening . Are you supporting the killing of babies ?

of course you have no evidence that is happening . Are you supporting the killing of babies ?
Babies have died at the border, and they die every day in this country because of adults' neglect and inability to care for them. And NO, I don't support the killing of babies.

you are equating deaths due to disease at the border with the legal infanticide the US participates in ? 54 million babies lives intentionally snuffed in the US since 1973 . Rare ?

you are equating deaths due to disease at the border with the legal infanticide the US participates in ? 54 million babies lives intentionally snuffed in the US since 1973 . Rare ?
How many babies and children died because medical care was refused, because of awful living conditions? Why were US babies' lives "snuffed"? -- "we changed our minds"?

do you have the stats ? I don't . I can't imagine that it is close to 45 million We are in Mao and Stalin mass murder territory .

In 2015, 638,169 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2015 was 11.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 188 abortions per 1,000 live births.
Compared with 2014, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions for 2015 decreased 2%. Additionally, from 2006 to 2015, the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 24%, 26%, and 19%, respectively. In 2015, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2006—2015).
Women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions in 2015 and throughout the period of analysis. The majority of abortions in 2015 took place early in gestation: 91.1% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.6%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. In 2015, 24.6% of all abortions were early medical abortions (a non-surgical abortion at ≤8 weeks’ gestation). The percentage of abortions reported as early medical abortions increased 114% from 2006 to 2015, with an 8% increase from 2014 to 2015. Source: Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2015. MMWR Surveill Summ 2018;67(No. SS-13) (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm)

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

***************
ANNUAL ABORTION STATISTICS

Based on the latest state-level data available, approximately 882,000 abortions (http://abort73.com/images/2017-abortion-data-table.png) took place in the United States in 2017—down from approximately 885,000 abortions (http://abort73.com/images/2016-abortion-data-table.png) in 2016 and 913,000 abortions (http://abort73.com/images/2015-abortion-data-table.png) in 2015.

https://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

do you have the stats ? I don't . I can't imagine that it is close to 45 million We are in Mao and Stalin mass murder territory .

While you are correct Tom you will never get the women's rights movement to admit they are mass murderers

True. Sadly, the dems and feminists have never been willing to place the life of a baby above their own political agenda. When Bill Clinton said abortions should be rare, that was just a talking point. From what I have seen, they basically don't care. Even women claiming to be Christians will not oppose this terrible practice.

What's really unfortunate is repub Christian conservatives trying to control and keep women and minorities in there place by any means necessary. Save your rhetoric for your parishioners, in your little communities and enjoy your lives and stay out of everyone else's. Obviously women think they know what's best for them and no longer want your old right wing advice on the subject.

I concur because abortions are becoming unnecessary, and late term abortions are rare.

I concur because abortions are becoming unnecessary, and late term abortions are rare.

So that means the NY governor has to boost the numbers, once again you are defending the indefensible, one to too many Tal

I wasn't asking abortion stats . I was asking a quantification of the proposal that a significant number of babies and children died because medical care was refused, because of awful living conditions? Those numbers cant be quantified . I can say affirmatively that since Roe ;45 million babies were killed in the US by abortion(and that is a conservative estimate ;I've seen numbers as high as 60 million plus .)

Beating people over the head won't change that Clete, never has. Baby steps in the right direction though may get us both where we want to be.

I wasn't asking abortion stats . I was asking a quantification of the proposal that a significant number of babies and children died because medical care was refused, because of awful living conditions? Those numbers cant be quantified . I can say affirmatively that since Roe ;45 million babies were killed by abortion(and that is a conservative estimate ;I've seen numbers as high as 60 million plus .

Dig deeper because you totals do not reflect the trend of less abortions. Laws or lack of laws don't give us the zero sum you want, but for sure banning them will bring those numbers back underground as before Roe. Babies have been aborted since almost the beginning of time by smart female who knew what they were doing and without a man even knowing.

the downward trend is because our generation stopped making babies to kill. So there aren't as many next generation to abort their babies . 2015;
"only " 638,169 babies were murdered . That makes us better than the one year total of the Rwanda genocide . But Rwanda was in one year . 600,000 represents a low water mark for us . We are roughly right there with the Armenian genocide .Except that went on for 2 years ;not 45 years .

Ouch!

Is it just a matter of a woman entering an abortion clinic, bada boom bada, bing?
Under what other circumstances does that ever occur?

The death of a pregnant woman is even more upsetting.


Now, a double homicide is when two people are killed by a different person or group
. Therefore, murdering a pregnant woman can be classified as a double homicide
because someone else is ending the life of a mother and a child.

Or Auntie Susan can help Brenda abort by using a straightened coat hanger.

the downward trend is because our generation stopped making babies to kill. So there aren't as many next generation to abort their babies . 2015;
"only " 638,169 babies were murdered . That makes us better than the one year total of the Rwanda genocide . But Rwanda was in one year . 600,000 represents a low water mark for us . We are roughly right there with the Armenian genocide .Except that went on for 2 years ;not 45 years .

I would imagine that women being more educated and better resourced, and having more options like seeing a GYN/OB earlier also contributes to the down trending number, but as it stands poor women are the only victims of the policies, practices and believers of that zero abortion policy. I've been listening to the soaring rhetoric and spin the so called moral people have about murdering babies and read the actual legislation, and your side lies about it, Tom, Clete, so as against abortion as I am I as a man cannot get pregnant and since abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed method to avoid pregnancy, which for most of us ain't going to happen then a woman has to take responsibility and the more she knows the better it is.

Living in a country whose very history was built on rape, pillage, and plunder, and of course genocide and murder, I find it laughable you still think you can call names and kick poor butts as you will. I can respect pro life, but stay out of my business unless you are committed to ALL life. And will raise the child until maturity. Seems you should at least respect someone that cannot, or is unwilling too, since you are as unwilling also.

Living in a country whose very history was built on rape, pillage, and plunder, and of course genocide and murder, I find it laughable you still think you can call names and kick poor butts as you will. .

Ah the reality of life in your nation, championed by liberal causes. And you think you should defend this

Your own history is not that different from ours, but centuries shorter and you had the benefit of learning from our mistakes, and still you make your own. Not my place to judge you and I'm not because you're good allies, and had a lot less opposition to your conquest, and a smaller population.

You're doing good, keep it up.

What's really unfortunate is repub Christian conservatives trying to control and keep women and minorities in there place by any means necessary.

Completely ridiculous comment. No one has even mentioned minorities.


I concur because abortions are becoming unnecessary, and late term abortions are rare.

Well, they might be killing babies, but it is really no longer necessary (how you came to that conclusion is a complete mystery) and, after all, they are killing them at ever younger ages so it's OK.

Wow. What logic.

Your own history is not that different from ours, but centuries shorter and you had the benefit of learning from our mistakes, and still you make your own. Not my place to judge you and I'm not because you're good allies, and had a lot less opposition to your conquest, and a smaller population.

You're doing good, keep it up.

I do and Tal, consider this, the issues of your nation are not mirrored in my own. We have a different set of problems to solve. Did we learn from your mistakes? My nation was not founded in rebellion and slavery. Not saying there weren't dark times and lamentable happenings, but the ethos is completely different.

What's really unfortunate is repub Christian conservatives trying to control and keep women and minorities in there place by any means necessary.


Completely ridiculous comment. No one has even mentioned minorities.


Oh the irony considering that Planned Parenthood was created one of the nation's most notorious racist eugenicist ;Margaret Sanger . You can read some of her views and quotes here :https://www.frc.org/op-eds/margaret-sanger-racist-eugenicist-extraordinaire

This is one of the primary reasons I voted for Trump. Thank God someone has taken action. He is denying federal funding to clinics that provide abortions as well he should.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6005956704001/

Yes but he very selective about what he denies federal funding too. I would have thought the abortion of millions of potential citizens was a greater national emergency than a wall but then in a nation that kills thousands of its citizens a year who knows what has priority.

No to worry because he has caused a great international recession and perhaps the next great depression

Not too sure about what's going on in the rest of the world, but the economy is humming here. Record low unemployment.

I enjoyed the Clinton years too, but that didn't stop wars recessions and depressions from ruining the economy. The lesson though was enjoy the good times while they last and save for the bad times sure to come. It's a bit unrealistic to assume that this current good time will last forever, or even for years to come. Never has before.

Not to worry . Trump is selling rice to China .https://money.cnn.com/2017/07/21/news/china-rice-us-trade/index.html

It's a bit unrealistic to assume that this current good time will last forever, or even for years to come. Never has before.

Agree completely. That's why it is so ridiculous to have deficit spending now. And you can be sure that people are racking up credit accounts like there is no tomorrow.

Agree completely. That's why it is so ridiculous to have deficit spending now. And you can be sure that people are racking up credit accounts like there is no tomorrow.
Genesis 41 25-37

Not too sure about what's going on in the rest of the world, but the economy is humming here. Record low unemployment.

Like that idiot Trump you don't care what happens in the rest of the world, you don't realise it is all interconnected. You are not the only place with record low unemployment but this is transient and could evaporate tomorrow. Trade is very important and it is slowing in many places. Do not think we are going to buy your outputs, we prefer our own

First you say Trump has caused an international recession, and then you say there are other places with record low unemployment. I think you are confused.

First you say Trump has caused an international recession, and then you say there are other places with record low unemployment. I think you are confused.

No, I may know more about economics than you do, our economy is not dependent on the same factors as yours, you will soon be kow-towing to the Chinese, Trump is trying to force them to take your exports, but that won't happen if you stuff their economy

you will soon be kow-towing to the Chinese, not likely their economy is losing steam very quickly . It could cost Xi his job soon. Seems the building of Potemkin cities isn't working as a plan very well anymore .

not likely their economy is losing steam very quickly . It could cost Xi his job soon. Seems the building of Potemkin cities isn't working as a plan very well anymore .

Do you not know why their economy is losing steam? Because it is interrelated to yours and your tariffs are damaging their economy without benefiting your own. Your economy is losing steam too, but then not surprising, it is powered by hot air

GDP growth by quarter since July 17. 3%, 2.8%, 2.3%, 2.2%, 4.2%, 3.4%. That hot air economy which is running out of steam sure seems to be doing pretty well. Record low unemployment as well. What is the grudge you hold against the United States? It sure affects your objectivity.

"appointed by God"


America has traded the truth for a lie.

Might it have more to do with God than having to do with Trump?

God is being pushed out of Society.
I think same Sex marriage is a big one. Now that same sex marriage is legal, this means "sex" can be taught in schools.
Kids are being groomed for sex!



Rejection of God will sink a society into debauchery.

Rejection of God will sink a society into debauchery

Absolutely true. Romans 1.

What is the grudge you hold against the United States? It sure affects your objectivity.

Any american I have met has treated me like scum and inferior in my own country. I have seen you try to change our laws to your advantage and our disadvantage. There are people here who think the sun shines out of your backside but I don't. My brother in law was a CIA stooge during the R and R

On behalf of America, sorry, we'll try to be nicer.

It's true that there are many arrogant people in the U.S. However, there seems to be a generally high regard for Australia.

That may be so but I have no way to measure it. Your leadership has show little regard and it took two years to appoint an ambassador and the policies of Trump are hurting our trade with China. I think we are a convenience to you

What is it you want? How do you think we feel???

It's been a long time coming.


Somebody has to fix Chinas "longtime abuse of the broken international system and unfair practice".
Presidents George H. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all failed to salve this problem.

The United States, one of the world's most significant economic markets. The country is among the top three global importers and exporters...No worries Hilar-- uh err Trump will handle it.


The Aussies are most favored by Trump...its a fact.

What is it you want? How do you think we feel???

It's been a long time coming.


Somebody has to fix Chinas "longtime abuse of the broken international system and unfair practice".
Presidents George H. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all failed to salve this problem.

The United States, one of the world's most significant economic markets. The country is among the top three global importers and exporters...No worries Hilar-- uh err Trump will handle it.


The Aussies are most favored by Trump...its a fact.

Maybe he realised his shotgun policies had unintended consequences, maybe not. But if we are allies our interests must be protected too otherwise no gunboat diplomacy on your behalf. As far as being friends is concerned he wanted to back out of an Obama deal on refugees as quick as he could and didn't have a clue who our Prime Minister was when meeting him at a conference and it took two years to appoint an ambassador which is an insult if we are "most favoured". Trump is damaging your markets too, it just takes a little longer for the damage to show up. This is where your systems of political lobbying can do a lot of damage because it is too focused on local issues without looking at the bigger picture.

The measures Trump has put in place hasn't solved the imbalance, your people still want cheap Chinese manufactures in preference to your expensive local product. You can't have it both ways, low wages and expensive industries. Why do you think industries set up in China in the first place? Now Trump would recreate the same situation in NK.

You are not the Target, don't make it personal.


I don't nessesarily agree with Trumps strategy, but China Keeps squeezing tech secrets from U.S. companies; Allowing such behavior to continue unchecked will imperil America’s current position as a leader in technology and the world’s most innovative economy.


But as goes the famous adage, ‘America sneezes and the world catches a cold’, the rippling effects of any macroeconomic decisions taken are felt by rest of the world.

AS The Monty Python Boys say “always look on the bright side of life”. Despite the shock, the world keeps on spinning.

You are not the Target, don't make it personal.


I don't nessesarily agree with Trumps strategy, but China Keeps squeezing tech secrets from U.S. companies; Allowing such behavior to continue unchecked will imperil America’s current position as a leader in technology and the world’s most innovative economy.


But as goes the famous adage, ‘America sneezes and the world catches a cold’, the rippling effects of any macroeconomic decisions taken are felt by rest of the world.

AS The Monty Python Boys say “always look on the bright side of life”. Despite the shock, the world keeps on spinning.





Collateral damage isn't acceptable.

Who is the fool here, China for demanding a piece of the action, or US companies for giving in. Yes, China aggressively pursued technology acquisition, and the US is right to push back against that, but don't think your companies weren't exploiting their people. What is really being complained about is the lack of technology royalties. The US has been fine with sharing technology for royalties for a long time. The reality is that anything can be reverse engineered and in a nation that doesn't respect copyright, it is fair game.

For a long time my country suffered ‘America sneezes and the world catches a cold’ but as our manufacturing industries declined we adapted so that we weren't as reliant on the US cycles and so when you sneeze we say bless you and move on

The President's trade policies are folly . When he realizes this and ends silly tariffs then the economy will likely recover like was predicted when his otherwise sensible tax and regulatory polices were enacted .

The President's trade policies are folly . When he realizes this and ends silly tariffs then the economy will likely recover like was predicted when his otherwise sensible tax and regulatory polices were enacted .

Indeed, those policies are what is holding the economy up. It is difficult to realise that you aren't dominant, that someone else has the reins, so do what you do well and find a way and leave others to do what they do well

https://scontent.fmem1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/53268264_1916588928467470_9182458500515627008_n.jp g?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-2.fna&oh=5341bfae9590e8b5348ad4e688bd727e&oe=5D26F6C5

If it were only so

So far as the economy is concerned, it is true. Give the man some credit. My biggest complaint is we continue to spend money with no restraint and deficits continue to grow. Really stupid.

Yes it is stupid, but no one is willing to do what has to be done, because you would have instant recession and maybe even worse. You are so used to sucking on the deficit teat that you can't get off. You would need budget surplus of a billion a year to have any chance of reversing the trend so that probably means spending cuts and taxation so massive it would devastate the economy. Look we have been through it on a smaller scale and it has taken us ten years to get back to a tiny surplus and it has done a lot of damage to government, leadership coups and years of government that is lame duck

We are like an alcoholic in that respect. Addicted to deficit spending.

I'm sure electing a dufus with more bankruptcies than you have kids is really going to solve that problem.

Says the man who twice voted for the biggest deficit spending pres in recorded history.

Says the man who twice voted for the biggest deficit spending pres in recorded history.

And left the dufus with a great economy after a great depression.

Facts don'y change peoples minds...that's a fact.
The Democrats and Republicans have had this ongoing feud for some time now.
It is nothing more than Democrats acting like sore losers...The entire world seen it, the entire world knows this to be fact.
Let the Democrats eat it. Nobody really cares what Trump is involved in, nothing will come of his "involvement in illegal activities...believe that.


Either way your just siding with one side of a feud.

There is a good reason why Obama/Hillary lost.
The democrats are just trying to save face.


Trump is our President. Let the Man do his Job, even if the Democrats don't want to do theirs.

And left the dufus with a great economy after a great depression.

1. There was no depression. You are still living in your fantasy world.
2. There was no "great" economy left for Trump. More fantasy.

Facts would be helpful here. Truth is, Obama had the worst post-recession recovery in American history.

1. There was no depression. You are still living in your fantasy world.

So the whole world was psycho and you're not? Dude, the evidence in this case is irrefutable.

2. There was no "great" economy left for Trump. More fantasy.

Stability in the world economy and the 6 solid years of job creation is a myth? Dude, could the dufus come in with high unemployment and financial disaster and save the whole world? He has yet to be tested other than play coo-coo to dictators, appointing a scandalous cabinets, and lying and talking crap while he enriches his friends to the tune of trillions in deficits, and worse the interest on the debts that YOU holler about. Obamas deficits not just from the Bush wars, but tax cuts for the middle class and STATE building projects, which created JOBS. Look it up for yourself and stop just engaging in hate speech against a former president who inherited a holy MESS, while you heap praise on a lying cheating dufus who spreads rumors and take the credit for what already was happening.

Believe all the lies you want but the DEVIL is in the truth!

3. Facts would be helpful here. Truth is, Obama had the worst post-recession recovery in American history.

Yeah he did, but repubs share that blame as much as he does. We would have a 20 year deficit reducing middle class jobs program at low interest rates had repubs approved his infrastructure bill in 2011! Look it up yourself since LINKS are so hard for you to comprehend.

Your so called facts are nothing but right wing loony talking points that reek of hypocrisy and LIES based on FEAR, and not facts.

My Tal you do get upset, but the issue really is that the president isn't responsible for recession or recovery, these things are part of an economic cycle and all you can hope for from a president is he points towards a goal.

There was no depression and no one says that except Tal. There was a recession, but nothing worse than what Reagan faced and with him as pres the economy turned around and did remarkably well WITHOUT an even bigger deficit causing infrastructure program.


Yeah he did, but repubs share that blame as much as he does. We would have a 20 year deficit reducing middle class jobs program at low interest rates had repubs approved his infrastructure bill in 2011!

That's the problem with democrats. It is always someone else's fault, except this time it's someone else's fault in bold text.

So we would have a deficit reducing federal spending program with low interest rates? How would that reduce the deficit??

I think you know the answer, but socialists never understand that the government doesn't have to do anything

I thought this was a good read.


QUOTE:



That the essence of politics is the "struggle" and that no one can cancel out the distinction between friends and enemies.
Understanding of politics as a distinction between friends and enemies and his preoccupation with the state unity which may be attained by identifying and persecuting the enemy, is a direct attack on liberal ideology". end quote.

https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/assets/pdf/Petrovic-Enemy.pdf


Enemy as the essence of political.

There was no depression and no one says that except Tal. There was a recession, but nothing worse than what Reagan faced and with him as pres the economy turned around and did remarkably well WITHOUT an even bigger deficit causing infrastructure program.

Reagan raised taxes as many times as he cut them to deal with debts and deficits but economic recovery was slow in coming in certain sectors of the economy. Wages were stagnant for years and inflation was high back then.




That's the problem with democrats. It is always someone else's fault, except this time it's someone else's fault in bold text.

So we would have a deficit reducing federal spending program with low interest rates? How would that reduce the deficit??

Unlike repubs who screw the money away and blame everybody else? Federal building programs have not just helped with the debt and deficits they allow states to leverage federal dollars for long term infrastructure upgrades and improvements. Those are some good jobs if you were paying attention.

Or maybe you're in the wrong state.

Reagan raised taxes as many times as he cut them to deal with debts and deficits but economic recovery was slow in coming in certain sectors of the economy. Wages were stagnant for years and inflation was high back then.

Here is average GDP growth by pres. Note that Obama is dead last.

Johnson (1964-68), 5.3%
Kennedy (1961-63), 4.3%
Clinton (1993-2000), 3.9%
Reagan (1981-88), 3.5%
Carter (1977-80), 3.3%
Eisenhower (1953-60), 3.0%
(Post-WWII average: 2.9%)
Nixon (1969-74), 2.8%
Ford (1975-76), 2.6%
G. H. W. Bush (1989-92), 2.3%
G. W. Bush (2001-08), 2.1%
Truman (1946-52), 1.7%
Obama (2009-15), 1.5%

As far as inflation went, during Carter's last three years, inflation was 9, 13, and 12%. During Reagan's first five years it was 9, 4, 4, 4, and 1%. The country was able to grow out of the Carter recession while controlling inflation at the same time. Amazing. And it was done without adding 9 tril to the federal debt.

Now to be fair, Reagan had less success with the unemployment rate. It peaked at almost 11% in 83 before beginning a five year slide to around 5% in his last year.

If there is any chart that should thoroughly alarm all of us, it is the rapid accumulation of federal debt over the last twenty years.

http://www.moresureword.com/USdebtGraph.jpg

Well you got the data correct even if your interpretation leaves much to be desired. Are we back to using links yet, or just YOURS?

Why does your chart stop at Obama? Must be older data that hasn't been updated yet.

As noted before; "People Don't listen to facts".
There are studies that prove this to be true.
Also, Sticking within ones own Political groups, talking to like minded people creates dopamine in your brain...your brain!


I don't ever remember Politics becoming part of a person's Identity...when did this take place;

It might have started during, the global anti-terrorist struggle, the search for and persecution of terrorists as mortal enemies of liberal democratic societies, started by the US-led western states in the aftermath of September 11.

It now seems people take political argument, positions, defeat etc. as though it is a personal attack on there person...go figure.


Back on topic:


If not for the "God Factor", Trump, alone (and he was alone) could not have won the Presidency. Who else but God could have influenced such a great feat!
Now we all know that Trump is kind of an Ignoramus. But you see, it is said that God will use the "foolish" things of this world to confound the wise.
So you see, those of you who think your wise, and believed Hillary to be a winner...and she was a winner according to every standard known to man. You (in fact we all do) stand confounded, perplexed by the Stupidity of it all.


It is no small thing that we stand with Israel once again. Standing with Israel, holds a blessing from God.

Had Obama, and the Democrats not separated (imposed a curse on themselves) from Israel, there would have been no need for prayer, hence Gods interaction.

I guess we could say; The World made Hillary a sure winner and Israel made her a sure/sore loser.
Israel effects the entire planet and all who reside in it.

As noted before; "People Don't listen to facts".
There are studies that prove this to be true.
Also, Sticking within ones own Political groups, talking to like minded people creates dopamine in your brain...your brain!


I don't ever remember Politics becoming part of a person's Identity...when did this take place;

It might have started during, the global anti-terrorist struggle, the search for and persecution of terrorists as mortal enemies of liberal democratic societies, started by the US-led western states in the aftermath of September 11.

It now seems people take political argument, positions, defeat etc. as though it is a personal attack on there person...go figure.


Back on topic:


If not for the "God Factor", Trump, alone (and he was alone) could not have won the Presidency. Who else but God could have influenced such a great feat!
Now we all know that Trump is kind of an Ignoramus. But you see, it is said that God will use the "foolish" things of this world to confound the wise.
So you see, those of you who think your wise, and believed Hillary to be a winner...and she was a winner according to every standard known to man.
You (in fact we all do) stand confounded, perplexed by the Stupidity of it all.


It is no small thing that we stand with Israel once again. Standing with Israel, holds a blessing from God.




Let me say that we must stop blaming God for the mistakes of man. There is no doubt God appointed leaders in Israel but if you read the accounts many of them were flawed individuals who failed. Trump is no different so whether God made it possible or not, the outcome has been a very mixed bag.

Yes, it is important to be on the right side of history, oppose evil and sow into God's agenda and protection of a small nation in the midst of its enemies is no different. Trump has been successful in avoiding unwanted confrontation with North Korea and is therefore more deserving of a peace prize than that poser Obama but let us stop giving out Peace prizes until peace is actually achieved because tearing up international treaties aimed at limiting the spread and quantity of nuclear weapons seems foolish to me. Is this what you mean when you seek to say God uses the foolish things

Well you got the data correct even if your interpretation leaves much to be desired.

Uhm... all I gave you was data. I left the interpretation up to you.

Your data is not current nor complete, as while the debt has gone up faster than revenues the last decade or so, there have been many systematic tinkering and costly circumstances that require factoring in.

Your data is not current nor complete, as while the debt has gone up faster than revenues the last decade or so, there have been many systematic tinkering and costly circumstances that require factoring in.

If I was an Obama voter, that would be the excuse I would use. Not sure which excuse factors into having the lowest GDP growth of any pres including Reagan, who inherited a situated every bit as bad as that which Obama faced.

That's inaccurate,

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

Reagan INCREASED the debt by 186% Obama 74%

I'm not sure what you are saying was inaccurate. I said Obama had low GDP growth, which is plainly accurate, and then you come back talking about national debt. But if you want to talk about that, then fine. Your article stated, "Under President Obama, the national debt (https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293) grew the most dollar-wise. He added $8.588 trillion. This 74 percent increase was the fifth-largest."

So it just depends on how you look at it. But to be clear, I would criticize Reagan for his debt accumulation as well as Bush II and, for now, Trump.

You see, that's how you and I are different. You will not break out of your protective shell to be critical of Obama under any circumstances. His 8 years was filled with scandal and lying, but you never mention it. Criticize Trump all you want, but at least apply the same standard to your beloved President Obama.

For the 78th time, it's all about politics.

Maybe Obama handled his so called "scandals" a lot better than yo' boy dufus and that says a lot in of itself.

Maybe Obama handled his so called "scandals" a lot better than yo' boy dufus and that says a lot in of itself.

Tell me Tal, what did that Muslim B'tard do for your country, other than stuffing it with debt?

Well according to you he was appointed by God. You dare question YOUR God?

Maybe Obama handled his so called "scandals" a lot better than yo' boy dufus and that says a lot in of itself.

It's even worse than I thought. Now you are praising Obama for being clever at hiding his scandals. What praise!

Fact is 0 indictments of Obama's peeps, 6 in two years for the dufus. Do the math anyway you can.

And zero indicted for crimes committed while employed in the Trump administration. So that would be... zero.

Flynn was the NSA advisor for a few weeks.

Well according to you he was appointed by God. You dare question YOUR God?

On that basis he was inflicted upon you

Flynn was the NSA advisor for a few weeks.

OK. I stand corrected. It is ONE. ONE. A great big ONE. Whoopee.

Judge rules Epstein deal unconstitutional.


https://www.npr.org/2019/02/22/697152922/judge-rules-that-prosecutors-in-jeffrey-epstein-sexual-abuse-case-broke-the-law


A federal judge has ruled that Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta broke the law in 2008 along with other prosecutors. At the time, Acosta was the U.S. attorney in Miami.


Well it's not new, but another dufus cabinet member is caught in a heinous scandal.

Judge rules Epstein deal unconstitutional.



https://www.npr.org/2019/02/22/697152922/judge-rules-that-prosecutors-in-jeffrey-epstein-sexual-abuse-case-broke-the-law



Well it's not new, but another dufus cabinet member is caught in a heinous scandal.


Really a

heinous scandal.

Such hyperbole used to refer to despicable acts

How about both descriptors? Either way another example of money TRUMPING justice. Epstein is no better than Cosby, or R Kelley is he?

Thank goodness he didn't do something genuinely despicable like holding a private meeting with the husband of a woman under active FBI investigation, and then just days later deciding not to file charges against the woman who, rather conveniently, just happened to be the democrat nominee for president.

Thank goodness he didn't do something genuinely despicable like holding a private meeting with the husband of a woman under active FBI investigation, and then just days later deciding not to file charges against the woman who, rather conveniently, just happened to be the democrat nominee for president.

That was a despicable post! How do you conflate child molesting and sexual abuse when you have NO EVIDENCE of the conversation between an ex prez, and an AG? Looks bad but come on man!

:(

That was a despicable post! How do you conflate child molesting and sexual abuse when you have NO EVIDENCE of the conversation between an ex prez, and an AG?

1. You linked to an NPR report, which is a notoriously left wing news organization. I'd love to hear what Acosta has to say before drawing any conclusions.
2. No evidence other than AG Lynch admitted the meeting took place?? Are you serious when you say "no evidence"?
3. If Epstein is indeed guilty, and it sure seems he is, then he should be hammered. If Acosta was playing politics with the plea deal, then he should be hammered. And if Lynch met with Clinton in secret (and she did), then she should have been dismissed the next day, but Obama would not deal with wrong-doing in his administration.
4. Sorry. My post was not despicable. Calm down. I'm still waiting for you to show any disgust at all with what Lynch did, but I know you won't since that would involve being critical of an Obama appointee and I know you won't go there.

Lynch recused herself from the case to avoid just what you are talking about. You guys make everything a deep state conspiracy, but don't want to see what the dufus is lying about. Unbelievable.

Lynch recused herself from the case to avoid just what you are talking about. You guys make everything a deep state conspiracy, but don't want to see what the dufus is lying about. Unbelievable.


When the right-wing loonies equate child abuse with the AG meeting, you know it's time to spend time fruitfully elsewhere. After not reading it for a few weeks, I come back and see it's starting to look like something out of Alex Jones' InfoWars. The loonies are getting loonier and loonier.

Another tip-off is criticism of Trump is invariably met with something negative about Hillary or Obama, rarely challenging the criticism of Trump. And when Trump's lies are equated to Obama's "lies", one can only shake one's head.

You say "unbelievable" - so true!

I have no problem with criticisms of Trump and have said so repeatedly. What I don't care for is the continual "holier than thou" attitude of the liberals who love to criticize Trump but are so in love with Obama and Clinton that there was never a critical word spoken about them. It's also amusing to see that all the name calling on this board is coming from the people who are supposedly against hate speech. Might want to take a look at yourself before you start looking at the "right-wing loonies".

If you can't see the despicable nature of Obama's lies about Benghazi, then you are too deeply into his politics.

As for Lynch recusing herself after her completely unethical meeting with Clinton, it's a case of closing the gate after the horse has gotten out of the barn. If you think they spent 45 minutes talking about the grandchildren, then you need a larger dose of reality.

Most of us liberals have moved beyond the Obama/Clinton stuff and focused on the NOW. You don't seem to have and keep rehashing the old stuff. I suppose there is a case for that, but you really should separate the past and deal with the present. I'm sre you enjoyed blasting the dems and liberals, so why shouldn't we have fun blasting the repubs and conservatives?

No I don't like the dufus or his policies, words, behavior, or the conservatives and repubs who can ignore his behavior. That's what I express. I live in the reality of NOW, but I did see this day coming as the pendulum swung back to you guys, and what you do. No biggie.

I see your point and it is somewhat valid. My complaint is that, while you say you liberals have moved beyond Obama/Clinton, you liberals are complaining about issues with Trump that you chose to completely ignore with Obama and Clinton. As the old saying goes, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." It is your selective outrage that I object to.

Exactly my point JL. More attributed to the tribal partisan politics we practice than anything else, but after years of Obama bashing and plain obstruction at the expense of consensus, it's the Dufus's turn in the barrel, and conservatives. That's my main objection, the right whining because we are doing to Trump, what you did to Obama. Been that way all my life.

That's politics but at the expense of consensus and good orderly direction within the boundaries of good behavior. Yeah I'm as guilty as anyone in engaging in such primitive uncivil behavior. Conservatives are hard to work with and impossible to move forward with unless you roll over and let them have their way. Fortunately, we have elections every two years and 2020 is coming around quickly.

Silly season never ends in America, and neither did the civil war. Just less blood, more noise.

I think that's a fair statement. It really all comes down to policies. So what Trump policies do you disagree with?

After much thought, NONE, and his character is abismal.

You don't disagree with ANY of his policies??

My bad forgive my misread. I disagree with ALL of his policies and plans as being shortsighted, ill informed and incompetently implemented, and self serving.

Again sorry for the misread.

My bad forgive my misread. I disagree with ALL of his policies and plans as being shortsighted, ill informed and incompetently implemented, and self serving.
...and harmful.

Can you be specific with two or three?

Can you be specific with two or three?
1. Immigration, e.g., now with parents and their children permanently separated
2. Repeal the ACA without replacing it with a better-thought-out plan
3. Has no interest in environmental concerns as reflected in various policies, e.g., oil pipelines and waterway protections
4. Build an unnecessary and even harmful wall on our southern border

1. Immigration, e.g., now with parents and their children permanently separated Would you prefer they put the children in jail with the parents? Do you realize it is, as I understand it, it is the same policy Obama had? Why do you think the separation is permanent?


2. Repeal the ACA without replacing it with a better-thought-out plan ACA has not been repealed.


3. Has no interest in environmental concerns as reflected in various policies, e.g., oil pipelines and waterway protections Could you be more specific? We have had oil pipelines and waterways for a long time. And are you in favor of the lunatic fringe democrat suggestion put forward by AOC?


4. Build an unnecessary and even harmful wall on our southern border Matter of opinion. You don't want parents and children separated, but you don't want to do what it takes to stop illegal immigration.

If we had a decent immigration system,jail wouldn't be necessary for the "millions" >sarcasm font< who come to our southern border. The separation of families is permanent because no one gave a hoot toward identifying and keeping track of the people who were separated. Heck, they're just poor brown people who can't speak English. Big deal....

ACA has been screwed up and is a total mess now. Trump planned to get rid of it.

I have no idea what AOC says. Oil pipelines should not cross waterways and private land or interfere with migrating animals. And we must put our best minds to work to get away from coal and oil use. We're in the 21st century!!!

Again, put a better immigration system on our southern border!!!! Then we won't have to worry about all those drug dealers (welcomed by OUR drug dealers and our young people) and gangsters (who love our easy-purchase gun culture) to move in.

The separation of families is permanent because no one gave a hoot toward identifying and keeping track of the people who were separated. Heck, they're just poor brown people who can't speak English. Big deal....

I doubt that is true.


ACA has been screwed up and is a total mess now. Trump planned to get rid of it.

It was screwed up from the word go, even back when President Obama was being dishonest about being able to keep your doctor and your policy.


I have no idea what AOC says. Oil pipelines should not cross waterways and private land or interfere with migrating animals. And we must put our best minds to work to get away from coal and oil use. We're in the 21st century!!!

Oil pipelines already do all those things and have been for decades. Can't pin that on Trump. I'm all for a rational, economic replacement for oil and gas. Let us know when you find out what it is.


Again, put a better immigration system on our southern border!!!! Then we won't have to worry about all those drug dealers (welcomed by OUR drug dealers and our young people) and gangsters (who love our easy-purchase gun culture) to move in.

Uhm... the drug dealers and gangsters slip across the border practically at will. The wall will stop that.

Uhm... the drug dealers and gangsters slip across the border practically at will. The wall will stop that.
The drugs come in by air and water. Drug dealers laugh at the idea of a wall. Do you really think they'll say, "Gosh darn! Now there's a wall. I can't get into the US. Guess I'll go back home."

What about the Rio Grande? I've yet to hear how building a wall is going to keep bicultural families and businesses prospering.

The drugs come in by air and water. Drug dealers laugh at the idea of a wall. Do you really think they'll say, "Gosh darn! Now there's a wall. I can't get into the US. Guess I'll go back home."

Your reference was not to drugs, but to drug dealers. That's what I referred to, but there is a river of drugs coming across the border. Yes they come in through other routes, but I am all in favor of stopping what we can, and primarily stopping the influx of illegal immigrants which the wall will be effective against.

Here in Texas we have dealt with LEGAL and illegal immigrants for a very long time without a wall until a loony started hollering about one.

Here in Texas we have dealt with LEGAL and illegal immigrants for a very long time without a wall until a loony started hollering about one.

So you deal with illegal immigrants by allowing them to pour across the border by the hundreds of thousands every year? You'll just have to pardon me if I am not impressed with that plan. No wonder we need to try something new.

JL, who's going to pick crops and work in orchards? Who's going to reroof houses? Who's going to do menial labor for the wealthy?

I'm all for immigrants coming across the border LEGALLY to work in America, but it also wouldn't be a bad idea to tell the current welfare recipients that we now have jobs for them.

Not very many live near the areas that need cheap labor. How do you propose they travel to those locations?

What would be wrong with them moving in order to gain employment? Kind of like an adult taking care of him/her self. Makes a lot more sense than taking money from Americans who DO work to give to someone else who doesn't want to move.

We're talking about "current welfare recipients" (who usually live near other family members). You brought it up. How can afford to move?

You've got a great list there.

We're talking about "current welfare recipients" (who usually live near other family members). You brought it up. How can afford to move?

Do what people have done for centuries. Sell everything you have, if need be, to buy a bus ticket. Do what has to be done. Act like a grown up and take care of yourself. People have done it for hundreds of years, and they used to do it in covered wagons. The greatest hindrance is the misplaced sympathies of liberals who want to treat these people like children and give them money taken from the pockets of others.

The people who currently have these jobs put what little they had in a backpack and sneaked across the border to get to those jobs. They walked the whole way. Don't you think that people who are already here and have some possessions can't do something similar?

The only path to the American dream is to get off your duff and get busy. Being on welfare is a lifetime sentence to mediocrity. It is a terrible thing to do to a free American.

Do what people have done for centuries. Sell everything you have, if need be, to buy a bus ticket. Do what has to be done. Act like a grown up and take care of yourself. People have done it for hundreds of years, and they used to do it in covered wagons. The greatest hindrance is the misplaced sympathies of liberals who want to treat these people like children and give them money taken from the pockets of others.

The people who currently have these jobs put what little they had in a backpack and sneaked across the border to get to those jobs. They walked the whole way. Don't you think that people who are already here and have some possessions can't do something similar?

The only path to the American dream is to get off your duff and get busy. Being on welfare is a lifetime sentence to mediocrity. It is a terrible thing to do to a free American.

You see, the people with nothing do this but those on welfare have too much to lose. Forget the american dream, that was last century and understand that you can only get what you work for

So easy to denigrate others when you have what you want. Shouldn't you Christians stop the badmouth and be grateful for what you have and help others when you can? Should you, when you cannot ,help those that can help others?

Just asking.

So easy to denigrate others when you have what you want.

I don't think I have done that.


Shouldn't you Christians stop the badmouth and be grateful for what you have and help others when you can? Should you, when you cannot ,help those that can help others?

I think you sum up my belief in the matter very well. I do believe I should help others and regularly do so. Where you and I differ is that you believe you should be able to not just help the poor yourself, but compel others to do so as well.

Clete, I assure you the American dream is alive and well for those who are willing to work for it.

I assure you the American dream is alive and well for those who are willing to work for it.
What about those who are willing but unable to work for it?

Not real sure what your point is, but I suppose you are referencing those who are physically or mentally disabled. They are certainly in a difficult position, although there are a great many physically disabled people who have overcome their disability and become very successful. Still, would you rather be in the United States and be disabled, or be disabled in any country you can pick in Africa, South America, or Asia?

Not real sure what your point is, but I suppose you are referencing those who are physically or mentally disabled.
Nope. I'm referring to those who have children and aren't married, live amongst family who give them emotional and perhaps financial support, who have never lived away from "home", who didn't do well in school and maybe don't even have a hs diploma.

Nope. I'm referring to those who have children and aren't married, live amongst family who give them emotional and perhaps financial support, who have never lived away from "home", who didn't do well in school and maybe don't even have a hs diploma.

You have met people like this? That's a lot of qualifiers.

You have met people like this? That's a lot of qualifiers.
Yes, I'm a retired public librarian and also a counselor (internship that opened my eyes was at Catholic Charities). And that description also fits a niece-in-law. I personally know three guys with Asperger's who fit that description except they aren't married with kids and did graduate from h.s.

Well, Aspergers would be a disability. As to your niece-in-law, is your family helping her? Has she gotten her GED? Is she pursuing job skills? Is she committed to no more children outside of marriage (which essentially means no more sex outside of marriage)? I would hope your family would be sufficient to help her.

I'm a retired school principal/teacher and a chaplain at a drug rehab center. I am aware of the number of hard cases out there. The problem with many of these people, and it is a hard problem to solve, is that they have a history of bad choices and show no sign of correcting that. I don't say that in a judgmental manner, but just as a matter of truth. It is difficult to deal with.

Asperger's is the brain differently wired. If anything, it's a developmental disability that can be helped with CBT and similar therapies.

The problem with my niece-in-law is that her parents help her too much and always have. It's called enabling. I'm sure each person who doesn't work or who doesn't want to move to another, unfamiliar part of the US for a job has a story to tell.

Conservatives have no trouble demanding tribute to those they KNOW have difficulties and issues. Able bodied is able bodies and what they get is no sympathy. During the Obama administration repub governors had to have a waiver for the work requirements just because they had no jobs in some parts of their states. It was granted and a plan was implemented for educational programs instead and repub heads exploded.

Few if any can just migrate to a different location and start working at what's available without some assistance and help, not even my 50 year old miner friend in Pa. that was needing a job when the mine shutdown, and there just was none. This isn't the American dream it's a nightmare when such life disruptions occur through NO FAULT of their own. I guess his bad choice was being a miner.

People deserve better than criticism for bad choices, and bad situations they never made. It could take years to overcome such events in ones life with help, let alone without the right help. JL my friend, you are a good fellow with good works, and intentions, but sometimes that just not enough, and that's frustrating I know, but great... no... good outcomes are never guaranteed and maybe you live in a smallish community where everybody knows everybody, but the big cities are full of good people who have met a bad time and not always from bad choices either, just desperate ones.

Maybe you should sojourn to other places and learn the harshness of reality and gain insights into your fellow humans instead of condemning them and denying them REAL help. But for the grace of God go you!

End of sermon... for now!

Maybe you should sojourn to other places and learn the harshness of reality and gain insights into your fellow humans instead of condemning them and denying them REAL help. But for the grace of God go you!

Both of my parents were products of the depression. Dad ended up as an E-8 in the Air Force and mom took a work scholarship to college to become a teacher. Thankfully they did not use the "Tal, whine for me" approach to life. Oh, the harshness of reality! Oh how we deny people help! Whine, whine, whine. Please. Spare me the lecture. I've lived 65 years without that nonsense and I've no intention of starting now. If you are mentally and physically healthy, then get busy. Might have to move. Sorry about that, but that's life. Get on with it. Don't depend on the government. Don't have children outside of marriage. Get a job and work hard at it. It's not complicated. It can be hard, but not complicated.

If I need to help someone I will. I am helping a good friend right now, but am I in favor of getting people addicted to government aid? Not ever.

I love the way you conservatives frame your BS with YOUR personal story. It's irrelevant unless you can listen and empathize with the story of others.

How does that make "his story" any less relevant?

Both of my parents were products of the depression.
Products of or born during?

Products of or born during?

Actually born before. Spent their childhood/teenage years in the Depression. It really left a mark on my dad especially. His family in particular became desperately poor, dirt farmers in Mississippi. So yeah, I don't have much patience with people who want to sit around and feel sorry for themselves. I generally gave up feeling sorry for people a long time ago unless they are physically/mentally disabled. I have a friend right now, age 61, who can barely walk across the room. He would love to be able to work a 50 hour a week job, but can't. For those who can, I just don't feel sorry for you.

Actually born before. Spent their childhood/teenage years in the Depression.
Both of my parents were born before and spent their growing-up years watching their parents cope (my father lived near Chicago and my mother in southcentral Idaho). I understand what you're saying.

Financial help isn't always what's needed to get someone energized. I've always enjoyed helping people figure out ways to help themselves and be hopeful.

Financial help isn't always what's needed to get someone energized. I've always enjoyed helping people figure out ways to help themselves and be hopeful.

Well said. I'm generally not a fan of government aid because, among other reasons, it does not make a personal connection with the person. What they need is what you stated above which is really good.

Well said. I'm generally not a fan of government aid because, among other reasons, it does not make a personal connection with the person. What they need is what you stated above which is really good.

I agree with the personal connection, but feel government has a crucial role to play as far as professional resources are concerned. As it stands the financial barely covers food.

As it stands the financial barely covers food.

Unless, of course, you include the housing and medical allowances as well as job training.

Typically those are paid to providers and the eligible recipient has no hand in those transactions. It's a process that your STATE controls.

It's still money being spent for the individual. To say the financial barely covers food is simply not correct. It covers a lot more than just food.

I would certainly like to live where welfare covers more than food and a few bare essentials

You don't have to move. Just start helping people from your personal income.

You don't have to move. Just start helping people from your personal income.
And I do. Plus, I pay taxes.

Section 8 housing. Food stamps. Medicaid.

As I've said before, no American has a right to another American's money. Mandatory charity is not charity.

You don't have to move. Just start helping people from your personal income.

How about people start helping me from their personal income which is greater than mine, don't see it happening. We should strip all millionaires, all billionaires down to basic income then maybe they would realise the misery capitalism visits on the world and get realistic taxation systems which tax the gross not the net, the real rather than the imaginary after deductions, if we got real, 10% would be a reasonable income tax for private individuals