The nation's silliness grows ever greater. Now there are women who claim to have been offended because Joe Biden kissed them on the back of the head or smelled their hair. Why wouldn't a woman simply turn and ask him to stop? Problem solved. Instead, they have to make an issue about it with the ever cooperative national media. Pitiful. I don't like Biden's political positions, but this is really nonsense.

Meanwhile, the ability of the political class in D.C. to act as though we have no sense seems to grow ever greater. Nancy Pelosi, in an interview concerning Biden's situation, claimed to be a member of the "straight arm club", meaning she believed in simply shaking hands (as opposed to hugging) and in treating others as though they "had a cold". Really? A simple web search shows this photo along with many other similar ones.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ef/4f/9d/ef4f9de7abab843716cfc74f2a9f66f2.jpg

JL, some guys and gals like to hug, and others don't. It depends on the relationship. Nancy and Barak, I'm sure, have great affection for each other. As for colleagues and coworkers, times have really changed regarding PDAs.

I'd much rather talk about the Joe and Hunter Biden crime family . But I have to hedge my bets because he's the only sane candidate in the Dem ranks .

JL, some guys and gals like to hug, and others don't. It depends on the relationship. Nancy and Barak, I'm sure, have great affection for each other.

I agree with you on that. Trying to find the proper boundaries can be a chore, and both men and women need to tell each other when the boundaries have been crossed. I imagine you would agree with that. But when Pelosi leaves Biden hanging out to dry by trying to say she is a hand-shaker and not a hugger, then that becomes beyond ridiculous. I'm convinced the entire political class is convinced we will believe anything.

But when Pelosi leaves Biden hanging out to dry by trying to say she is a hand-shaker and not a hugger, then that becomes beyond ridiculous. I'm convinced the entire political class is convinced we will believe anything.
I'm guessing most of her physical contact with others is a handshake, and she saves the affection for those she knows well and has a good relationship with. Years ago, my mother told me I had to accept the hugs or kisses or pats from male family friends as well as relatives I rarely saw and often didn't remember. Thank goodness we've gotten beyond that!

I'm guessing most of her physical contact with others is a handshake, and she saves the affection for those she knows well and has a good relationship with.

I'm guessing she is a politician and likely prone to lying when she considers it to be profitable.


Years ago, my mother told me I had to accept the hugs or kisses or pats from male family friends as well as relatives I rarely saw and often didn't remember. Thank goodness we've gotten beyond that!

Agree completely. A woman should never be put into a situation in which she in not comfortable. On the other hand, there are too many women who are excessively affectionate upon meeting a man. That sends mixed signals which can cause problems. I think the Bible nails it when it refers to a "holy kiss". Whatever affection is shown should done in a holy manner.

Biden's touchy feely BS would've been creepy in the days of Cary Grant,in the days of the Rat pack Sinatra days .The Dems dismissed it in the past as 'good ole Uncle Joe being good ole Uncle Joe. He talks of mores changing . But that is a garbage excuse . Never was his gropemeyster act acceptable .

What is hypocritical about the whole thing is that the only reason he is being called out now is because the progressives and commies like Sanders (who almost assuredly is behind the sudden outrage ) are trying to knee-cap his campaign before it gets off the ground. Then they can divvy up the shattered emperor's coalition.

Biden's touchy feely BS would've been creepy in the days of Cary Grant,in the days of the Rat pack Sinatra days .The Dems dismissed it in the past as 'good ole Uncle Joe being good ole Uncle Joe. He talks of mores changing . But that is a garbage excuse . Never was his gropemeyster act acceptable .
Why is Trump's acceptable -- and by Christians!!!


What is hypocritical about the whole thing is that the only reason he is being called out now is because the progressives and commies like Sanders (who almost assuredly is behind the sudden outrage ) are trying to knee-cap his campaign before it gets off the ground. Then they can divvy up the shattered emperor's coalition.
Nope. It's much more complicated than that. Stay tuned!

Trump's isn't acceptable and I really don't care about this side show . Here is the story we should be focusing on
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-04/biden-funneled-18-billion-ukraine-while-son-bagged-sweetheart-government-deal?fbclid=IwAR0TWnYiAXDkbfn0_BUW-oge6IYs1z3-pG-uXphE4n33f6VllSlGzNp-1dY

I find a lot of things about Trump to be unacceptable. I'm not comfortable with those things like you seem to have been about Pelosi's, Obama's and HC's many problems. You know, that knife cuts both ways.

here is a better reporting on the REAL Biden scandal .

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived


btw ; Joe Biden presided over the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmations of Justice Clarence Thomas . So he knew what the social norms were back in the 1980s and what was acceptable behavior .

This may prove to be a lot more important than anything the dufus or ANY politician is talking about.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/venezuelas-loss-russia-chinas-gain-23937

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-russia/russia-says-it-has-opened-helicopter-training-center-in-venezuela-idUSKCN1RE1G3?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

if it were me I'd be enforcing the Monroe Doctrine . RT says the Chinese are there for 'humanitarian 'reasons. So do you have anything to say about Biden's collusion ?

if it were me I'd be enforcing the Monroe Doctrine . RT says the Chinese are there for 'humanitarian 'reasons. So do you have anything to say about Biden's collusion ?

Perhaps a less heavy handed approach would have seen better results but instead they have an open door. Let us hope that gunboat diplomacy isn't needed to change the situation, after all it didn't really work with Cuba, did it

America as an Republic is over... It will no longer be able to conduct business. Each side will be suing or using the courts to delay or stop any action of the other.

The Republicans would not stop chasing Obama's citizenship issue. This has taken a turn for the worst and the Democrats will not even accept Trump and if one attack fails, they just start others, so all of the resources are tied up attacking the President

No matter who wins, the next time, it will only get worst and worst. The Socialists have won, and at some point there will be a President for life and the other party all put in jail. (like other countries do)

I personally see the Republican doing this, since there is a better chance of the military following them.

America as an Republic is over... It will no longer be able to conduct business. Each side will be suing or using the courts to delay or stop any action of the other.

The Republicans would not stop chasing Obama's citizenship issue. This has taken a turn for the worst and the Democrats will not even accept Trump and if one attack fails, they just start others, so all of the resources are tied up attacking the President

No matter who wins, the next time, it will only get worst and worst. The Socialists have won, and at some point there will be a President for life and the other party all put in jail. (like other countries do)

I personally see the Republican doing this, since there is a better chance of the military following them.

I think you have spent too much time under one party government. Socialism, as implemented in the US, is not socialism, it is benevolent despotism. People can have health care if they can pay for it, the environment can be looked after if it yields its resources, the government owns large swathes of the country with access for recreational purposes, and the Congress actually passes legislation now and again

if it were me I'd be enforcing the Monroe Doctrine . RT says the Chinese are there for 'humanitarian 'reasons. So do you have anything to say about Biden's collusion ?

Still looking into this as repubs ignored it, so don't know much except it will be a campaign issue for Biden, but Russia and China have money on the brain in Venezuela, and despite the mismanagement of it's resources it's still there.


America as an Republic is over... It will no longer be able to conduct business. Each side will be suing or using the courts to delay or stop any action of the other.

The Republicans would not stop chasing Obama's citizenship issue. This has taken a turn for the worst and the Democrats will not even accept Trump and if one attack fails, they just start others, so all of the resources are tied up attacking the President

No matter who wins, the next time, it will only get worst and worst. The Socialists have won, and at some point there will be a President for life and the other party all put in jail. (like other countries do)

I personally see the Republican doing this, since there is a better chance of the military following them.

It's a Civil War Charles, 21st century style.


I think you have spent too much time under one party government. Socialism, as implemented in the US, is not socialism, it is benevolent despotism. People can have health care if they can pay for it, the environment can be looked after if it yields its resources, the government owns large swathes of the country with access for recreational purposes, and the Congress actually passes legislation now and again

So we have glitches... so what... who doesn't?

So we have glitches... so what... who doesn't?

Glitches, the last fifty years has been one glitch after another. Somewhere you have lost the concept that an elected government is there for a purpose, to govern, not to be opposed at every turn. Some opposition is healthy, but deliberate undermining of government isn't opposition, it is treason

When Lee surrendered in 1865 the real fighting began and it's still rages on. Going to the moon and killing Osama were just side things along the way, but the war rages on. I guess to build a better union you have to tear stuff up and start again, but supposedly there is method to the madness.

Glitches do happen when you have a works still in progress and half of us are loony as Betsy bugs.

The Republicans would not stop chasing Obama's citizenship issue.
That was a small segment of Republicans. The better example was the Republicans committed to putting road blocks in front of his agenda . That did not stop him from force feeding his program through when the Dems had majorities in Congress ;and later by executive action.
Trump squandered his time when he had congressional majorities .He got the tax cuts passed ..good for the economy ;good for him. But the more important agenda IMO was border security ;the issue that won him the Presidency . In that case he has failed . The reasons he has failed are mostly the opposition fault . But he has not been effective in doing what is doable .



No matter who wins, the next time, it will only get worst and worst.
Probably true . Both parties are purging moderates from their ranks . These attacks on Biden being the most recent example . I say go for it . Crazed socialists will be much easier to defeat . There is a lot wrong with Biden. But he is the only one of the group I believe who could win the swing states .


The Socialists have won, and at some point there will be a President for life and the other party all put in jail. (like other countries do)

I personally see the Republican doing this, since there is a better chance of the military following them.
In a way the socialists have won. No one talks of fiscal responsibility anymore . President for life ? Not really ;but if they succeed in orchestrating a coup against Trump then it is reasonable to suggest that no one will be elected to the Presidency who isn't a member of the political duopoly .(unfortunately Trump was not the right outsider to break the control. )



It's a Civil War Charles, 21st century style.

Professor Michael Vlahos of the Naval War College and the
Global Security Studies program at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Arts and Sciences has argued for years that the American identity is a permanent state of civil war. We were lulled into believing a different reality because we are the children of the post WWII era .Until the 1960s there was a brief time when our civil war impulses were turned outward .

"Today, two righteous paths are gridlocked in opposition. Both perceive themselves as champions of national renewal, of cleansing corrupted ideals, and of truly fulfilling America’s promise. Both fervently believe that they alone own virtue. Yet the banners of each course are absolutist mirrors of one another, pro and contra, all or nothing. Moreover, lightning rod issues, as in the 1770s and 1850s, make the space between battle lines a no man’s land, forcing majority moderates and compromising fence-sitters to choose or be called out as willing collaborators with the other. "

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/we-were-made-for-civil-war/

here is a shocking tale of Biden I bet you never heard .Dec 1972 newly elected Senator Biden received the tragic news that no one wants to hear . His wife had driven into a busy intersection into the path of an oncoming truck ;killing her and his young baby daughter ,and severely injuring his 2 sons. The driver of the truck Curtis Dunn was cleared of all wrong doing by investigators .Still the accident weighed heavy on him until his own death in 1999. Around 2000 , Biden started telling a fabricated tale of the accident . He claimed in his narrative that Dunn had drunk his lunch instead of eating it implying that he was a drunk driver . The family wrote to Biden asking him to stop and retract . But Biden continued to tell the falsehood smear as late as the time of his run in 2008 for the Presidency and being selected for the Vice Presidency.
https://www.newarkpostonline.com/.../article_6c9a477e... (https://www.newarkpostonline.com/news/local/daughter-of-man-in-biden-crash-seeks-apology-from-widowed/article_6c9a477e-63be-561b-b771-1330b4cda02d.html?fbclid=IwAR1a1-2Cpulu3wQgEq3yrCYqBvKsu5Fe3rDN_2sMRoX-eGkzkXoxp4M8t20)

At least he didn't claim to have flown into Kosovo under sniper fire.

While I desperately do not want him to be president, one can't help but have some compassion for the guy. Wife dead. Daughter dead. Now his son dead. That's a lot of heartache.

Any democrat look good to you? Just curious as I have this notion your mind is already made up to hold your nose and keep the dufus around to get those conservative activist judges that will overturn those "liberal activist judges" that brought you gay marriage, and abortions, and tax cuts for the rich.

That's the scary part . Biden was the only Dem I was considering . You should be thrilled with Kavanaugh . He's siding with the libs in case after case .


Bob Kerrey . I could vote for him . https://www.omaha.com/opinion/midlands_voices/bob-kerrey-how-did-department-of-justice-get-the-trump/article_7b68c700-f356-5cb8-8baf-bbbdc5375bf4.html

Most likely I'll vote write in again .

Any democrat look good to you? Well, they have all endorsed AOC's insane New Green Deal. As far as I know they have all endorsed the insane reparations idea. So no, none of them look good to me.


Just curious as I have this notion your mind is already made up to hold your nose and keep the dufus around to get those conservative activist judges that will overturn those "liberal activist judges" that brought you gay marriage, and abortions, and tax cuts for the rich.

If you can find abortion rights and gay marriage in the Constitution, please post it here.

If you can find abortion rights and gay marriage in the Constitution, please post it here.

I think you need to understand the gay scene as an abberration, you won't find it in the constitution because it wasn't an issue in the eighteenth century

you won't find it in the constitution because it wasn't an issue in the eighteenth century

You need to read a little more history.

You need to read a little more history.

No, they had more important things to think about than whether queers could marry or would want too. For the LGB such matters are later issues once you get past survival. In a society where tolerance doesn't exist such matter are moot.

What I do notice is once they are allowed to marry the heat seems to have gone out of their issues, they are rarely heard of now, faded back into their shadow world

In the US the notion that all are equal is an ongoing struggle. That's history.

In the US the notion that all are equal is an ongoing struggle. That's history.

Yes why do you have such difficulty with it?

Equal protection under the law is the concept. I think we do a pretty good job of that, other than the occasional Jussie Smollett.

Equal protection under the law is the concept. I think we do a pretty good job of that, other than the occasional Jussie Smollett.

I do not, and historical fact bears that out. There has always been opposition to equality, be it class or race, religion, or economics. Looks good on paper, but reality is rather depressing when many still are fighting for the opportunity of freedoms and equal protection under the law.

We have a long way to go.

many still are fighting for the opportunity of freedoms and equal protection under the law.

Who, and in what way?

Women, gays, and minorities. Even grouchy old white men who feel victimized by everybody getting their voices heard and there rights gained. What you didn't know?

Women, gays, and minorities.

I just don't agree with you.

No surprise there. No surprise that you know nothing of the struggles of those that don't look, or think like you either.

No surprise there. No surprise that you know nothing of the struggles of those that don't look, or think like you either.

The question is not of struggles. It's of equal protection under the law. Everyone, believe it or not, has struggles.

I agree so when will we realize that equal protection under the law?

I agree so when will we realize that equal protection under the law?

It will never be perfect, but I know of no major differences. Do you?

We've touched on this before. Women making less money and subject to sexual harassment. The law is slow in addressing that. Gays being thrown out the military and refused financial/social benefits, which is changing, but a lot of opposition, and of course minorities specifically black and brown still fighting discrimination at the polls at the job and are more likely to see heavy jail time than white counterparts and profiled more intensely, and be beat or killed by cops.

DOJ civil right division gutted at a time hate crimes rise, and racist making local policy to facilitate discrimination and harassment. The wage gap ain't no joke either. Surprised you don't acknowledge that discrimination still exists but maybe not as apparent in your locale.

I agree it may never be perfect but we can still strive to do more, and should.

Women making less money and subject to sexual harassment. Women doing the same job with the same experience and training do not make less money than men. That has repeaedly been proven to be untrue. And the last time I checked, sexual harassment is against the law.

Gays being thrown out the military Last I heard that was no longer being practiced.


minorities specifically black and brown still fighting discrimination at the polls at the job and are more likely to see heavy jail time than white counterparts and profiled more intensely, and be beat or killed by cops.

I'd like to see your documentation on that. The issue of jail time is less an issue of race than of the manner in which laws are written. As for being killed by cops, it is a rare occurrence for a non-white to be killed needlessly by a policeman. It gets talked about all the time, but then we find out, for instance, that Michael Brown actually assaulted the policeman who then turned out to be the victim in the whole story.

Since you brought up the Brown shooting I will use that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/03/04/the-12-key-highlights-from-the-dojs-scathing-ferguson-report/?utm_term=.31ff0f7734d1

Women doing the same job with the same experience and training do not make less money than men.
You must be a man. Oh yes! You are! Wish I could relive job interviews and have you sitting next to me. It wasn't many years ago there was a huge enough difference between men's and women's pay.

You must be a man. Oh yes! You are! Wish I could relive job interviews and have you sitting next to me. It wasn't many years ago there was a huge enough difference between men's and women's pay.

Wow. What convincing data.


Since you brought up the Brown shooting I will use that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.31ff0f7734d1 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/03/04/the-12-key-highlights-from-the-dojs-scathing-ferguson-report/?utm_term=.31ff0f7734d1)

Yeah. I'm really going to pay a lot of attention to Obama's DOJ.

Ferguson is 2/3 black. If they don't like the way things are being run, they can elect a slate of liberal democrats and then follow the path of Detroit.

Yeah. I'm really going to pay a lot of attention to Obama's DOJ.


If it doesn't agree with your belief, it's FAKE NEWS. You have learned your lesson well from your master Trump.

If it doesn't agree with your belief, it's FAKE NEWS. You have learned your lesson well from your master Trump.

Well, of course it is fake, invented, twisted, partial but rarely the whole truth

Agreed the dufus rarely tells the whole truth, and lies multiple times with every breath. That takes natural skill and plenty of practice.

Probably learned it from Obama and HC.

Naw, its well documented he was a liar and cheater before those two came on the scene. His dad taught him well, and that's well documented too.

That might be, but no supporter of Obama and Clinton has any room to be critical.

Funny I say the same thing about supporters of the dufus. Obama is gone so it's just your turn in the barrel, so all those rocks you threw at Obama you should expect them back. I suggest you learn to duck.

so all those rocks you threw at Obama you should expect them back. I suggest you learn to duck.

Fair enough statement. Just remember that anything you say about Trump is also true of Obama, so don't act so shocked and outraged when you say them, and bear in mind that you do not occupy the moral high ground in any respect.

I don't need the moral high ground to dispute your outrageous claim that Obama did the same thing that the dufus is doing. The FACTUAL evidence just doesn't support your claim, but does support my assertion of your confusion between reality and BS!

your outrageous claim that Obama did the same thing that the dufus is doing. The FACTUAL evidence just doesn't support your claim, but does support my assertion of your confusion between reality and BS!

Yeah, he did. In fact his lying was about 4 brave Americans left to die in Benghazi as we have discussed before. He did it to insure his reelection. He also lied about Obamacare and AG Lynch meeting with BC in the airport. And just wait to see what is going to come out about his spying on the Trump campaign. There is your reality for you.

Just remember that anything you say about Trump is also true of Obama.


This is why it's impossible to have any kind of meaningful conversation with the loony right-wing.

Yeah, he did. In fact his lying was about 4 brave Americans left to die in Benghazi as we have discussed before. He did it to insure his reelection. He also lied about Obamacare and AG Lynch meeting with BC in the airport. And just wait to see what is going to come out about his spying on the Trump campaign. There is your reality for you.

I hate to break it to you but all that has been investigated by MANY including the GOP many times, and resolved and sorry you continue to be stuck on it. The matter at hand now are the dufus lies.


This is why it's impossible to have any kind of meaningful conversation with the loony right-wing.

Hardline extreme loony right wing.

I hate to break it to you but all that has been investigated by MANY including the GOP many times, and resolved and sorry you continue to be stuck on it. The matter at hand now are the dufus lies.

There is no question that Obama lied. For that matter, the Russia matter has been concluded and no charges filed against Trump, yet you continue to say he lies, so evidently you must not have to be convicted to be a liar.

You know guys, the incessant name-calling gets old, especially by the "We don't believe in name-calling," crowd. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, maybe you should try to just say nothing. Your example is far more revealing than your words.

Your facts are totally in error. Check your resources again.

There is no question that Obama lied. For that matter, the Russia matter has been concluded and no charges filed against Trump, yet you continue to say he lies, so evidently you must not have to be convicted to be a liar.


This is called a FALSE EQUIVALENCE. Trump has over ONE THOUSAND documented lies and misstatements on his account. The number grows every day. Even his fellow Republicans are increasingly embarrassed by this disgrace to everything decent in American life.


You know guys, the incessant name-calling gets old, especially by the "We don't believe in name-calling," crowd. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, maybe you should try to just say nothing. Your example is far more revealing than your words.


Maybe you should take your own advice. Your nearly constant presence on this board consists primarily of repeating your pro-Trump agenda while absolving yourself from his repellent lifestyle - all in the face of declaring yourself a Christian. You should know better.

49150


The republican - democrat divide

Your facts are totally in error. Check your resources again.

No need to. My facts are correct.


This is called a FALSE EQUIVALENCE. Trump has over ONE THOUSAND documented lies and misstatements on his account. The number grows every day. Even his fellow Republicans are increasingly embarrassed by this disgrace to everything decent in American life.

I don't contend that Trump has not lied, but he has done nothing to compare with Obama's wild assertion that the Benghazi attack was not a terrorist attack. Four dead Americans were the result of his inaction. So yeah, it is a false equivalence to compare Trump's lies to that outrageous lie of President Obama.


Maybe you should take your own advice. Your nearly constant presence on this board consists primarily of repeating your pro-Trump agenda while absolving yourself from his repellent lifestyle - all in the face of declaring yourself a Christian. You should know better.

I have no pro-Trump agenda. I agree with his idea of a southern wall and admire his ability to encourage economic growth. I detest his continuance of deficit spending and his never-ending non-productive tweets and public statements. You need to pay closer attention. Much closer.

The news came out recently that Beto O'Rourke, rising democrat liberal star, is worth over nine million dollars, and yet gave less than one half of one percent of his income to charity. What a perfect example of what seems to me to be the typical liberal position on charity. I love poor people so much that I will take your money and give it to them.

You need to change that tin foil hat and let your nose go as there are NO facts in your entire first post #61. If there are SHOW ME! While you're at it show me the dufus charity giving which was recently dismantled, his family prohibited from any charity connections and a fine levied. Is that typical conservative behavior ripping off people, and using charity for personal gains?

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/trump-scam-charity/

What a perfect example of what seems to me to be the typical liberal position on charity. I love poor people so much that I will take your money and give it to them.


Better than Trump who creates a phony charity, takes the public's money, and then spends it on personal expenses and portraits of himself which he hangs in his clubhouses. The chutzpah is breathtaking!

You need to change that tin foil hat and let your nose go as there are NO facts in your entire first post #61.

Trump sent his NSA on to five different Sunday morning news programs to tell everyone that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an offensive video. He then later said in a televised debate that he had said all along that it was an act of terror. Now I know you love the man, but there is a lie in there.

He said we could keep our doctor and keep our current policies when he introduced Obamacare. I guess he forgot to read the legislation because that turned out to be wrong for many people. Lynch met with BC on the tarmac of an airport while HC was under an active FBI investigation. Please don't tell me you are trying to say these things did not happen. If so, there are probably only four other people in America who would agree with you. You might as well say the sun does not rise in the east. It's silliness.

I don't care that O'Rourke doesn't give to charity. That's his business. I do care that he, and many other liberals, want to act like the very soul of charity because they are willing to take money from taxpayers to give to the poor. If you want to impress the rest of us, tell us what you are personally doing first. I do agree that the chutzpah of that attitude is, indeed, breathtaking.

Trump sent his NSA on to five different Sunday morning news programs to tell everyone that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an offensive video. He then later said in a televised debate that he had said all along that it was an act of terror. Now I know you love the man, but there is a lie in there.


I guess you missed Obama's Rose Garden speech on September 12th 2011 and subsequent speeches where he clearly says Benghazi was a terrorist attack You cannot ignore there was unrest at all the embassies for one reason or another at that time and security was heightened throughout the world. I have sent you many links before on this that you ignore or refuse to acknowledge or just don't get in your continued right wing loony mantra. The lie is yours to own.



He said we could keep our doctor and keep our current policies when he introduced Obamacare. I guess he forgot to read the legislation because that turned out to be wrong for many people. Lynch met with BC on the tarmac of an airport while HC was under an active FBI investigation. Please don't tell me you are trying to say these things did not happen. If so, there are probably only four other people in America who would agree with you. You might as well say the sun does not rise in the east. It's silliness.

Your doctor can drop you and I wish he would have explained that. Lynch promptly recused herself and left it to the FBI on the HC investigation which was proper and appropriate even if Comey dropped the ball. The silliness is yours to own despite facts.



I don't care that O'Rourke doesn't give to charity. That's his business. I do care that he, and many other liberals, want to act like the very soul of charity because they are willing to take money from taxpayers to give to the poor. If you want to impress the rest of us, tell us what you are personally doing first. I do agree that the chutzpah of that attitude is, indeed, breathtaking.


More anti government right wing crap since it's your county who decides who to help in conjunction with the government, both repub, and dems and for sure Ms. is a repub stronghold taking YOUR money. Your ignorance of the law and the process of it's functions undoubtedly contributes to your blaming the libs when the government is neither liberal nor conservative.

Of course you never acknowledge that, since you think no conservative would ever take your money to assist needy people. It's no wonder you take the side of the lying, cheating, DUFUS. I guess talking about the past is easier than talking about the present antics of dufus and his lying AG William Barr.

I guess you missed Obama's Rose Garden speech on September 12th 2011 and subsequent speeches where he clearly says Benghazi was a terrorist attack

So why did he send his NSA on five Sunday morning news programs to say otherwise?


Lynch promptly recused herself and left it to the FBI on the HC investigation which was proper and appropriate even if Comey dropped the ball.

The AG meets in private for forty five minutes with a man whose wife is prominently under FBI investigation, but you think that's all hunky dory? Yeah, she recused herself AFTER the whole mess became public. Wow. You really did love Obama.


More anti government right wing crap since it's your county who decides who to help in conjunction with the government, both repub, and dems and for sure Ms. is a repub stronghold taking YOUR money. Your ignorance of the law and the process of it's functions undoubtedly contributes to your blaming the libs when the government is neither liberal nor conservative.

Liberal dems constantly brag about the wonders of the welfare system which is a fed program, funded by fed taxes, administered by the states. O'Rourke is such a perfect example of the people who love to brag about being charitable with someone else's money.

Obamacare claims. "Here is a guarantee that I've made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you've got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor." How did that "guarantee" pan out? https://www.weeklystandard.com/jeryl-bier/obamacare-website-no-longer-addresses-you-can-keep-your-doctor

At least you and "the dufus" are in complete agreement with the need to ridicule your opponents with name calling. Like I said earlier, I think you are more like him than you care to admit.

Why are you arguing issues that are years old, move on, the world has moved, Kim has updated weapons, China has expanded, Putin sits in the Kremlin and laughs. You spend vasts amounts of money and it goes nowhere. You have to find the plughole and put the plug in

You have to find the plughole and put the plug in

Very true. It's identifying the plughole that is giving us a problem.

Very true. It's identifying the plughole that is giving us a problem.

You start with the biggest A/hole and work from there, there is no shortage of candidates

Why are you arguing issues that are years old, move on, the world has moved, Kim has updated weapons, China has expanded, Putin sits in the Kremlin and laughs. You spend vasts amounts of money and it goes nowhere. You have to find the plughole and put the plug in

You can't say the money is going nowhere Clete. Rich guys are doing GREAT, better than most governments in the world. The military is the best in the world. Who cares about debts, as long as the Chinese and others buy savings bonds. Everybody just got a tax cut, so what could you be talking about?

You can't say the money is going nowhere Clete. Rich guys are doing GREAT, better than most governments in the world. The military is the best in the world. Who cares about debts, as long as the Chinese and others buy savings bonds. Everybody just got a tax cut, so what could you be talking about?

You think this is OK, you just outspend everyone and expect the Chinese to pay. You are living in a delusion. Tal are you one of those rich guys or just the chump who pays?

Not too sure that you guys are setting a great example yourselves.





Date
(30 June)
Gross debt
(A$ billion)
Debt ceiling
(A$ billion)


2004
59.628
n/a


2005
60.103
n/a


2006
59.078
n/a


2007
58.273
75


2008
60.451
75


2009
101.136
200


2010
147.123
200


2011
191.283
250


2012
233.968
300


2013
257.370
300


2014
319.479
n/a


2015
368.730
n/a


2016
420.412
n/a


2017
500.979
n/a


2018
531.937

2017 and 2018 are the dufus debts up from Obama's I will note. Those are your rich guy taxes.

Trump has a long ways to go to catch up with Mr. Obama.

Not too sure that you guys are setting a great example yourselves.





Date
(30 June)
Gross debt
(A$ billion)
Debt ceiling
(A$ billion)


2004
59.628
n/a


2005
60.103
n/a


2006
59.078
n/a


2007
58.273
75


2008
60.451
75


2009
101.136
200


2010
147.123
200


2011
191.283
250


2012
233.968
300


2013
257.370
300


2014
319.479
n/a


2015
368.730
n/a


2016
420.412
n/a


2017
500.979
n/a


2018
531.937




Yes it is an issue, however our budgets will be in surplus and our debt is a much lower percentage of GDP, now if you could use the same level of fiscal responsibility

Yes it is an issue, however our budgets will be in surplus and our debt is a much lower percentage of GDP, now if you could use the same level of fiscal responsibility Fair enough statement, but found some interesting info from the link below.

1. This budget year will see a surplus of $7.1 billion, equal to 0.4 per cent of GDP. (Will be interesting to see how that works out.)
2. Budget surpluses will build in size in the medium term and are expected to exceed 1 per cent of GDP from 2026-27. (Promises, promises.)
3. The Government is reducing debt, not through higher taxes, but by good budget management and growing the economy. (Sounds a lot like the Reagan plan.)

https://www.budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/overview.htm

Fair enough statement, but found some interesting info from the link below.

1. This budget year will see a surplus of $7.1 billion, equal to 0.4 per cent of GDP. (Will be interesting to see how that works out.)
2. Budget surpluses will build in size in the medium term and are expected to exceed 1 per cent of GDP from 2026-27. (Promises, promises.)
3. The Government is reducing debt, not through higher taxes, but by good budget management and growing the economy. (Sounds a lot like the Reagan plan.)

https://www.budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/overview.htm

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

Let us just say, that for the moment, we no longer have a government that spends like a man with no arms, and the economy has not collapsed or gone into recession. We don't know whether future plans will be realised, particularly if the dingbat left is elected in a few weeks, however we have your GFC to thank for the current position. I would also say that along with government debt, household debt has risen to dizzing heights during that time, so I'm not worried

Australian Debt Clock (http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/)

I would also say that along with government debt, household debt has risen to dizzing heights during that time, so I'm not worried

How would that not be worrying?

How would that not be worrying?

Because, unlike government debt, it is secured by tangible assets, desirable assets that others are beating a path to our door to buy, in any case, our Gold mines continue to pump out value, our iron and coal are sold on the world stage, and we have untapped wealth, our education system is world class and we educate many overseas students. What this says is it is our wolrd view that will eventually prevail

Because, unlike government debt, it is secured by tangible assets, desirable assets that others are beating a path to our door to buy, in any case, our Gold mines continue to pump out value, our iron and coal are sold on the world stage, and we have untapped wealth, our education system is world class and we educate many overseas students. What this says is it is our wolrd view that will eventually prevail

In what way is the U.S. different? We export petroleum products and coal. Our universities are filled with foreign students. We have enough natural gas in the ground to last over a hundred years. Both countries have the same basic problem, a large liberal class that lives in a fantasy world and threatens to take over. We spend huge sums of money on dead-end green energy ideas. We pay people to sit at home when jobs are abundant and encourage irresponsible lifestyles that are destructive to the family unit. Those are the things that will bring us down.

The main difference between Australia and the US economies is the Aussies want the rich to pay a fair share and that CAN fund tax breaks for middle and lower classes that actually will circulate funds through the whole economy, boosting overall profits. Our tax cuts sucks trillions from circulation, adds to the debt, which boosts rich guys, but does little for average Americans, except increase debts amid prices rising in needed commodities.

This dynamic only sets up to destroy any wage gains seen in a tight labor market.

The main difference between Australia and the US economies is the Aussies want the rich to pay a fair share and that CAN fund tax breaks for middle and lower classes that actually will circulate funds through the whole economy, boosting overall profits. Our tax cuts sucks trillions from circulation, adds to the debt, which boosts rich guys, but does little for average Americans, except increase debts amid prices rising in needed commodities.

You want the rich to pay a fair share? Are you kidding? The top 5% of taxpayers already pay about 60% of income taxes. The bottom 50% pay basically nothing. How much fairer a system do you want? Do you really believe that stuff?

In what possible way do you believe that tax cuts suck "trillions from circulation"?

60 corporations paid NO taxes and many filed for a refund and where do you think the debts by the dufus come from? You are lucky it was capped by law, which is exactly why corporate taxes rates were made permanent but ours was NOT. By my logic if the top 5% have whatever amount of the money, should they not pay that percent in taxes?

You really want to keep funding rich guy tax cuts with YOUR money? Do you really think tax havens and rich guy deductions trickle down to YOU? Review YOUR link to Australia's economic plan and READ that Australians agree with ME, and not you!



3. Making multinationals and big business pay their fair share




$12.9 billion in tax liabilities raised from tax compliance activities since July 2016.
New funding for the ATO to target tax avoidance by multinationals, big business and high‑wealth individuals



Maybe rich guys paying a fair share doesn't wipe out the debt TODAY, but the Australian model certainly does over time and pays for other important government functions and goals and delivers a tax cut for poor and middle class folks and small businesses.

60 corporations paid NO taxes There are 1.7 million corporations in our country. That means, by your figure, that 1,699,940 paid taxes and 60 did not.

You are lucky it was capped by law, which is exactly why corporate taxes rates were made permanent but ours was NOT. I have no idea what you are talking about other than to say there is no such thing as a permanent tax rate. It can be changed in any year by a simple legislative act.


By my logic if the top 5% have whatever amount of the money, should they not pay that percent in taxes? OK. If we go by your logic, the top 5% make about 35% of the income, so we would need to drastically lower their taxes. You need to stop drinking the liberal Kool Aid and start thinking for yourself.


You really want to keep funding rich guy tax cuts with YOUR money? Already pointed out that it is actually the other way around. The bottom 50% pay basically nothing, so it is the wealthy who fund them.


Do you really think tax havens and rich guy deductions trickle down to YOU? Review YOUR link to Australia's economic plan and READ that Australians agree with ME, and not you! For the 79th time, the top 5% pay 2/3 of the income tax. Even with all the deductions, they still pay 2/3 of all federal income tax. And why would I care what some small country thinks of us or worry as to who they might agree with? I like Australia well enough, but I'm not concerned as to whether or not they like what we do. Our government's job is to serve Americans first.

For the 79th time, the top 5% pay 2/3 of the income tax. Even with all the deductions, they still pay 2/3 of all federal income tax. And why would I care what some small country thinks of us or worry as to who they might agree with? I like Australia well enough, but I'm not concerned as to whether or not they like what we do. Our government's job is to serve Americans first.

Spirious argument, Income tax is predicated on the idea that those who earn income should contribute. It is a liberal idea that tax rates should be progressive to discourage accumulation. Your government is indeed self serving, but does not serve the people. What happens in a smaller economy is that ideas are tested and proven. What do we think of you? Beyond comprehension. What a wasted opportunity. Every time a "leftist" government has been in control they have embarked on costly social reform, I think this might also be your experience. The difference here is that it seems to be enacted without stuffing it up pandering to the market because we are more engaged in the idea of consensus politics than you are. So ignore what has been successful somewhere else and remain in ignorance

So ignore what has been successful somewhere else and remain in ignorance

A little humility would be in order. Sometimes I would love to see the U.S. cut our defense budget in half and tell the rest of the world to take care of itself. If we had done that during the Cold War the world would look much different and much worse with the Soviet Union still in business. It's easier when you are a small country and take care of no one other than yourself. When people need help, they don't turn to Australia.

So yeah, some of your criticism is warranted, but not your constant disparagement.

A little humility would be in order. Sometimes I would love to see the U.S. cut our defense budget in half and tell the rest of the world to take care of itself. If we had done that during the Cold War the world would look much different and much worse with the Soviet Union still in business. It's easier when you are a small country and take care of no one other than yourself. When people need help, they don't turn to Australia.

So yeah, some of your criticism is warranted, but not your constant disparagement.

As I said reman in ignorance. Australia has stood beside you in conflicts where you are clearly wrong, where your european allies haven't. Other nations of the world know we are reliable, not fair weather friends. I saw a representation in a recent TV series that I thought accurate. Americans, great people but America something else. I feel the same way, so stop taking it personally

This is an example of what I mean

]https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/columbines-chilling-legacy-americas-insane-plan-to-stop-school-shooters/news-story/089bd4011e73ddbe4350b7dec2fbe057

Instead of removing the weapons and therefore opportunity from the community, you teach children to hide in the certainity that some of them are going to face a murderous attack


[/FONT]

As I said reman in ignorance.

Yes, Great Master.

There are 1.7 million corporations in our country. That means, by your figure, that 1,699,940 paid taxes and 60 did not.
I have no idea what you are talking about other than to say there is no such thing as a permanent tax rate. It can be changed in any year by a simple legislative act.

I forget, with you I have to specify exactly as there are many types of corporations. Some are larger than others. I meant THESE. (http://fortune.com/2019/04/11/amazon-starbucks-corporate-tax-avoidance/)


OK. If we go by your logic, the top 5% make about 35% of the income, so we would need to drastically lower their taxes. You need to stop drinking the liberal Kool Aid and start thinking for yourself.


My logic says that NO taxes were paid on 80 billion bucks. Don't know what flavor Kool-Aid that is but it can't be good.


Already pointed out that it is actually the other way around. The bottom 50% pay basically nothing, so it is the wealthy who fund them.


Payroll taxes ain't taxes? Okay https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/13/us-wealth-inequality-top-01-worth-as-much-as-the-bottom-90 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States


For the 79th time, the top 5% pay 2/3 of the income tax. Even with all the deductions, they still pay 2/3 of all federal income tax. And why would I care what some small country thinks of us or worry as to who they might agree with? I like Australia well enough, but I'm not concerned as to whether or not they like what we do. Our government's job is to serve Americans first.

Same theory different scale, Circulate the money from the bottom up. Goes right to the economy, and right to the top, just not as fast, but steadily.

Yes, Great Master.

At last, you have found your place

Payroll taxes ain't taxes? Social security taxes do not fund the federal government. It's a completely different situation. You're grasping at straws rather than just admit you were wrong.


I forget, with you I have to specify exactly as there are many types of corporations. Some are larger than others. I meant THESE. (http://fortune.com/2019/04/11/amazon-starbucks-corporate-tax-avoidance/) If a corporation makes a profit, what do you think happens with those profits?


My logic says that NO taxes were paid on 80 billion bucks. Don't know what flavor Kool-Aid that is but it can't be good.

Why are you changing the subject? You said that your "logic" required that "if the top 5% have whatever amount of the money, should they not pay that percent in taxes?" So are you saying that the top 5% should only pay 35% of the taxes instead of 64%? I'm just following your logic.


Same theory different scale, Circulate the money from the bottom up. Goes right to the economy, and right to the top, just not as fast, but steadily.

I'm not sure what you are asking for. The bottom half already pay basically nothing in federal income tax. The top 5% carry most of the burden. Am I in favor of taking money from wealthy people, most of whom are wealthy because they work hard and smart, and just handing it over to poor people so we can follow your strange economic theory? Well no, I'm not.

At last, you have found your place

You are a citizen of a small country. You have no idea of what it means to carry the burdens the U.S. has to carry. Stop acting like you are some kind of world superpower. It's easy to sit in the safety and security the U.S. has provided for decades and cast stones.

I'm not sure what you are asking for. The bottom half already pay basically nothing in federal income tax. The top 5% carry most of the burden. Am I in favor of taking money from wealthy people, most of whom are wealthy because they work hard and smart, and just handing it over to poor people so we can follow your strange economic theory? Well no, I'm not.


You have the wrong take on this, the wealthy reap the benefits and should pay for the protection society affords them. Also no one knows whether they will be wealthy tomorrow or not, so not helping the poor is downright disingenuous. The harder you work and the more you accumulate the more you need that protection and buy yourself a gun is not a good option. You have heard the phase but for the grace of God, go I. think on it a while

You have the wrong take on this, the wealthy reap the benefits and should pay for the protection society affords them. Also no one knows whether they will be wealthy tomorrow or not, so not helping the poor is downright disingenuous. The harder you work and the more you accumulate the more you need that protection and buy yourself a gun is not a good option. You have heard the phase but for the grace of God, go I. think on it a while

I don't know what I have to do to get this to sink into your heads. The top 5% pay almost 2/3 of income taxes. That allows the bottom half to pay almost nothing. So the poor do not have to pay taxes. And you don't think that is helping the poor? I'm all for helping the poor, but when governments do it, yours or ours, it quickly degenerates into a "vote for me and I'll give you money" kind of situation. And then you wake up and find yourself 22 tril in debt. As for buying a gun for self protection, it's a great idea. You can easily lose your life waiting on police to arrive. If you want to strip yourselves of the ability to defend yourself and your family, then go ahead, but we choose not to. And I'll say it yet again. You forcing another person to help the poor is not charity, it's robbery.

I don't know what I have to do to get this to sink into your heads. The top 5% pay almost 2/3 of income taxes. That allows the bottom half to pay almost nothing. So the poor do not have to pay taxes. And you don't think that is helping the poor? I'm all for helping the poor, but when governments do it, yours or ours, it quickly degenerates into a "vote for me and I'll give you money" kind of situation. And then you wake up and find yourself 22 tril in debt. As for buying a gun for self protection, it's a great idea. You can easily lose your life waiting on police to arrive. If you want to strip yourselves of the ability to defend yourself and your family, then go ahead, but we choose not to. And I'll say it yet again. You forcing another person to help the poor is not charity, it's robbery.

You still don't get it, people pay tax because they have income, the means to pay. I agree that taxation is theft but if you elect a government taxes come with it otherwise you will have extortion by the police force, but then you have that too. Instead of bleating like shorn sheep you should be lifting the poor with employment so they can join the ranks of tax payers



You are a citizen of a small country. You have no idea of what it means to carry the burdens the U.S. has to carry. Stop acting like you are some kind of world superpower. It's easy to sit in the safety and security the U.S. has provided for decades and cast stones.


My opinion is no less valid. We don't want to be a superpower, but we are are a power in our part of the world. We don't want to lord it over others, but we too have to project power to keep China out of the small nations of the Pacific. Don't tell us we have no idea of your burdens when we have stood beside you in battle. You were once a leader now you are a despot

Just continue to blissfully sleep under the protection of the most generous despot in history

Running a deficit to give the rich a windfall is legalized stealing.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/democrats-misleading-tax-line/



Why do these individual tax cuts expire in the law? Republicans say (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/30/republicans-explain-why-their-tax-cuts-are-temporary-but-not-really-temporary/?utm_term=.0c8bc2617ad8) they expect a future Congress will extend those cuts, rather than allowing taxes for many to increase. But in order to pass their tax bill through budget reconciliation, a process requiring only a majority vote in the Senate, Republican lawmakers could not add more than $1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. Nor could they have a bill that added to the deficit beyond that 10-year window.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calls the expiring cuts “gimmicks.” It notes (http://www.crfb.org/blogs/tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-doesnt-comply-byrd-rule) that “the ‘easy’ options” for Republicans to make the final bill meet those requirements were to have some of the tax cuts expire — and that’s what GOP lawmakers did. While the final bill costs an estimated $1.46 trillion over 10 years (https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5053), CRFB says (http://www.crfb.org/blogs/final-tax-bill-could-end-costing-22-trillion) the actual cost could end up being $2.2 trillion, when these sunsetting tax cuts are actually extended.


Generous my arse!

Running a deficit to give the rich a windfall is legalized stealing.

I am as against Trump's deficits as I was against Obama's. They are both irresponsible in that regard, but at least Trump has a very healthy economy.

You do realize that your link concluded that democrats have been lying about the Trump tax cuts?

"The Republican tax plan was signed into law just last month, and Democrats already have a well-worn, and misleading, talking point about it: 83 percent of the tax cuts go to the wealthiest 1 percent."

Now when the top 5% pay 2/3 of the taxes, and the bottom 50% pay about nothing, then how do you enact tax cuts that will benefit the bottom 50%?

then how do you enact tax cuts that will benefit the bottom 50%?

You remove them from the system, then you can deal with inequity in the system

I am as against Trump's deficits as I was against Obama's. They are both irresponsible in that regard, but at least Trump has a very healthy economy.

You do realize that your link concluded that democrats have been lying about the Trump tax cuts?

"The Republican tax plan was signed into law just last month, and Democrats already have a well-worn, and misleading, talking point about it: 83 percent of the tax cuts go to the wealthiest 1 percent."

Now when the top 5% pay 2/3 of the taxes, and the bottom 50% pay about nothing, then how do you enact tax cuts that will benefit the bottom 50%?

I have no problem getting the facts out, and we all should take a politicians words with more than a grain of salt. As I have said before, Trust, but VERIFY.

You remove them from the system, then you can deal with inequity in the system

Agreed if removing them from the system means a much better wage. That is starting to happen but won't get rolling for a few years in increments the way the law is written. Mathematically though there will always be a bottom half when compared to the whole, but there are more factors involved that need to be addressed, like rich guy deductions, and incentives to hoard and hide money as well as pay equity, which I define as a part of corporate governance. For example the calculation of benefits and perks, that all workers can benefit from, not just management or the boards and execs.

Obviously I advocate for new management for our government.

About 3% of American workers earn minimum wage, so that is not the problem. Raising the minimum wage is suspect in many ways. It keeps teenagers from getting entry-level jobs. It results in fewer workers having jobs since it encourages automation by employers. It takes away the freedom of an individual to work for less than minimum wage if he/she chooses to.

What is really working now is the fact that we have a healthy economy and so there is increased competition for good workers, hence wages are going up. That is always the best answer.

And to say yet again, the idea that the wealthy are not paying their fair share is nothing more than liberal propaganda. Anyone who has not been drinking the liberal kool-aid too long, and who has more than five free minutes on their hands and internet access can see quickly that it is absolutely untrue. It is a lie spread by the political class, pure and simple.

You mean 3% work for just $7.25 dollars, since that's the Federal minimum wage by law? Some states are higher and have passed $10-$15 dollars in increments as I said. Another factor besides wages for your consideration is PRICES, in all commodity sectors. On second thought never mind since it's fruitless to debate someone on fiscal policy/or law when they know nothing about it, and keep spouting republican trickle down economics to justify legal robbery of the citizenry. To keep human value in the hands of the coronated elite monied class, while the oldest trick in the book is perpertrating the whole sheeple theory against we the people as written by law.

Liberals are not the only ones playing politics are we?

keep spouting republican trickle down economics to justify legal robbery of the citizenry.

Find where I have advocated for that. Otherwise, admit you are just making it up as you go, because that's what you are doing.


You mean 3% work for just $7.25 dollars, since that's the Federal minimum wage by law?

Yes, that's how it is. Many of them are teen-agers working a part-time job. Most adults who do start at the fed minimum wage stay there for a couple of years and then begin to move up.

My idea, which I used to tell my students all the time, is to make yourself valuable. Learn to do something that pays well. Become a welder, plumber, brick mason, truck driver, nurse, doctor, teacher, or any one of hundreds of other jobs that pay well. Get better at your job every day. Work hard and keep your big mouth shut. Work 60 hours a week if need be to support yourself. Live in freedom, get off of Uncle Sam's plantation, and stop depending on the almighty government to promise you a pay raise if you will only vote for him/her. Save enough money to invest (Yes, it can be done) and stop borrowing money for silliness. You don't need a new car. Live smart. Be an self-supporting, freedom loving American, free from nursing at the breast of the federal government.

That is a message I suspect I will never hear from you. If you have ever said it, I don't remember it.

That's great advice for kids still living at home with some sort of support system, but adults with kids require a LOT more. Maybe that's the difference between us since a large bulk of my experience is with adults trying to rebuild their lives from trauma and mistakes, and circumstances beyond their control. Had you paid attention you may have gleaned that from what I have written, but now you know as obviously we have differing perspectives and that's OKAY.

That's great advice for kids still living at home with some sort of support system, but adults with kids require a LOT more. Maybe that's the difference between us since a large bulk of my experience is with adults trying to rebuild their lives from trauma and mistakes, and circumstances beyond their control. Had you paid attention you may have gleaned that from what I have written, but now you know as obviously we have differing perspectives and that's OKAY.

I do see your point. I have worked with recovering drug addicts for well over ten years now. My experience recently has been they can get out of jail or out of a recovery center and have a job within a week. It's incredible.

Now a single mom with kids is in a bind. No doubt about it. That is why we should all join together in this country in calling for a return to some basic common sense and morality. We should tell young women, "Don't be STUPID and get pregnant outside of marriage." The consequences are devastating for both the woman and the child. The sorry man can just go off chasing another woman, but the mother is in a bad spot.

Can we join together and at least agree on that?

Now a single mom with kids is in a bind. No doubt about it. That is why we should all join together in this country in calling for a return to some basic common sense and morality. We should tell young women, "Don't be STUPID and get pregnant outside of marriage." The consequences are devastating for both the woman and the child. The sorry man can just go off chasing another woman, but the mother is in a bad spot.

Can we join together and at least agree on that?
Why is it all on her? Why can't that male take responsibility to not go in for the attack every time a female gets within three feet of him OR if he just can't control himself (poor dear), pay child support and be a father to those kids?

The problem is women with kids ,and those circumstances vary, NEED immediate assistance, not lectures and that's my FOCUS. I have often asked what is your plan AFTER the deed or event is done. An alarming thing I have seen is it's not just women who need IMMEDIATE help, but FAMILIES, both married and unmarried. The hardship to those people often extends to their immediate families who cannot sustain that type of burden for long because their resources are stretched to the limits themselves.

It's a very complex problem my friend that is well beyond JUST morality, but circumstance.

And thus we see the problem. You will not even join in a call to young women to do what is in their best interest. I often am amazed at just how it is that liberals will not do even a wildly common-sense call such as to tell young women not to get pregnant out of wedlock. Oh well. I guess we'll let the problem just continue. It's on the same level as being afraid to tell smokers that it's really important for them to stop smoking.

Complex? It is far from complex. Do not have sex outside of marriage. A middle schooler can understand it. Granted, it does not solve existing problems, but surely we can develop some national courage and do the smart thing. You disappoint me.

surely we can develop some national courage and do the smart thing. You disappoint me.

This is certainly needed in more ways than one

And thus we see the problem. You will not even join in a call to young women to do what is in their best interest. I often am amazed at just how it is that liberals will not do even a wildly common-sense call such as to tell young women not to get pregnant out of wedlock. Oh well. I guess we'll let the problem just continue. It's on the same level as being afraid to tell smokers that it's really important for them to stop smoking.

Complex? It is far from complex. Do not have sex outside of marriage. A middle schooler can understand it. Granted, it does not solve existing problems, but surely we can develop some national courage and do the smart thing. You disappoint me.
And thus we see the problem. You will not even join in a call to men of every age to do what is in women's (and their own) best interest. I often am amazed at how conservatives will not do even a wildly common-sense thing such as to tell men of every age not to get a woman pregnant out of wedlock. Oh well. We all realize men have no self control. Apparently, you don't give a hoot if the problem continues. It's on the same level as being afraid to tell smokers that it's really important for them to stop smoking.

Complex? It is far from complex. Men, do not have sex outside of marriage. A middleschooler can understand it. Granted, it does not solve horniness problems, but surely men can develop some courage, self control, and do the smart thing. Read books instead. Get busy at work, school, and with hobbies. Volunteer and help "the least of these" at a nursing home, hospital, food bank, soup kitchen, animal shelter. Don't disappoint me!

And thus we see the problem. You will not even join in a call to men of every age to do what is in women's (and their own) best interest. I often am amazed at how conservatives will not do even a wildly common-sense thing such as to tell men of every age not to get a woman pregnant out of wedlock. Oh well. We all realize men have no self control.

Absolutely I agree with you and join in the call now in the terms you have described. Of course I've done this many times before. Still, with me on board your call, do you now have the courage to join with me in calling for young women to avoid sex outside of marriage and out of wedlock births?

What is your response??

but surely men can develop some courage, self control, and do the smart thing. Read books instead. Get busy at work, school, and with hobbies. Volunteer and help "the least of these" at a nursing home, hospital, food bank, soup kitchen, animal shelter. Don't disappoint me!

And none of this solves the horniness problem as you put it. Can you imagine pulling out your copy of War and Peace when out on a date, no, today you might advocate pulling out your phone. This will not impress. The woman has to clearly say No! And mean it, but young women are not taught this, they are taught to insist on a condom, which is sort of saying sex is OK

Still waiting, WG. What is your response. Shall we make a call to men and women both?

And none of this solves the horniness problem as you put it. Can you imagine pulling out your copy of War and Peace when out on a date, no, today you might advocate pulling out your phone.
Just so they don't pull out something else....


This will not impress. The woman has to clearly say No! And mean it, but young women are not taught this, they are taught to insist on a condom, which is sort of saying sex is OK
Nope! The guys have to say no. After all, you and JL insist they are the stronger and more reasonable sex, right?


Still waiting, WG. What is your response. Shall we make a call to men and women both?
I've made my response. To males: As much as she pleads for it, like a whimpering child wanting a cookie, JUST SAY NO!

I've made my response. To males: As much as she pleads for it, like a whimpering child wanting a cookie, JUST SAY NO!

When I typed my question I already knew what your response would be. You just don't have the courage to take a stand with women. Sometimes I think you are so afraid of being labeled a conservative, evangelical Christian that you just can't summon up the courage to take a firm position. Maybe you are so in love with liberal politics that you are afraid to abandon your orthodoxy. At any rate, that's why I no longer like to respond to your posts. Too many words, too little willingness to take a stand. I was disappointed with Tal. Your response was spot on what I had expected.


JL insist they are the stronger and more reasonable sex, right? Nope. Never said that. You're just making it up as you go along because you know you cannot defend your position.

How long has the religious type been imploring no sex outside of wedlock? How well has it worked? What enforcement of such a position do you propose?

What should be done after the deed is done?

How long has the religious type been imploring no sex outside of wedlock? How well has it worked? What enforcement of such a position do you propose?

Well, you seem to lack the conviction to make the call yourself, so don't be so critical of others who do. Maybe we genuinely care about women and don't want to see them having to raise a child, or children, alone. But it actually worked amazingly well until the 1960's. Out of wedlock birth rates were single digit back then. Now it is about 30%, and approaching 75% in the black population. That is a disaster.

How well did it work? From an article linked below. "Today the overwhelming majority of black children are raised in single female-headed families. As early as the 1880s, three-quarters of black families were two-parent. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black families were two-parent. One study of 19th-century slave families found that in up to three-fourths of the families, all the children had the same mother and father. Today's black illegitimacy rate of nearly 75 percent is also entirely new. In 1940, black illegitimacy stood at 14 percent."

Again, you disappoint me. It's such a logical, common-sense position to take that worked for centuries. I have no idea why anyone would shrink back from it.

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/walter-e-williams/true-black-tragedy-illegitimacy-rate-nearly-75

You just don't have the courage to take a stand with women.
And you don't have the courage to admit that all you males MUST HAVE SEX and that's the entire problem.


Sometimes I think you are so afraid of being labeled a conservative, evangelical Christian that you just can't summon up the courage to take a firm position.
Sticks and stones....

Maybe you are so in love with liberal politics that you are afraid to abandon your orthodoxy.
My "orthodoxy" is as ridiculous as yours.

At any rate, that's why I no longer like to respond to your posts. Too many words, too little willingness to take a stand.
I have to take a stand? Oh, I did. And males are incapable of sticking to it. And how ruffled your male feathers would be if women demanded a ring AND marriage before allowing sex.

And how ruffled your male feathers would be if women demanded a ring AND marriage before allowing sex.

Exactly what my wife and I did. Didn't ruffle my feathers at all. Again, you just make it up as you go along. Amazing your lack of conviction.

Maybe we ... don't want to see them having to raise a child, or children, alone. But it actually worked amazingly well until the 1960's. Out of wedlock birth rates were single digit back then.
That's because of all the back-alley and granny- or auntie-induced abortions back then. You apparently didn't get out much during the early '60s and before. Unmarried pregnancy used to be a shameful thing, but that changed during the '70s and forward.


Exactly what my wife and I did. Didn't ruffle my feathers at all. Again, you just make it up as you go along. Amazing your lack of conviction.
And I could name many who didn't. Glad you kept your feathers slicked down. :) Lack of conviction? So you have decided insulting and shaming me will shut me up? Great fundie Christianity at work!

How long has the religious type been imploring no sex outside of wedlock? How well has it worked? What enforcement of such a position do you propose?

What should be done after the deed is done?
Excellent questions!

Is there a reason you have ducked this question every time its asked?


What should be done after the deed is done?

What should be done after the deed is done?

Complicated question. Ideally, I would say that since this woman did not ask the taxpayer's advice prior to becoming pregnant, then she should not ask for the taxpayer's help after becoming pregnant. But I would be open to continuing the current welfare system, brought about by the utter refusal of people like Tal and WG to take a simple stand in favor of protecting women and children from single parent hardship, so long as it was set to no longer be in effect beginning in twelve months. The taxpayer should not be on the hook for decisions he/she had no input on.

Now personally and individually I would be glad to help out a single mom in need, but I do not favor forcing my morality on other Americans like you want to do.

I would be open to . . . take a simple stand in favor of protecting women and children from single parent hardship
Better would be he doesn't ask. Then she doesn't have to say no.

so long as it was set to no longer be in effect beginning in twelve months.
Then what?

The taxpayer should not be on the hook for decisions he/she had no input on.
We taxpayers are on the hook for a lot of things we had no input on.

do not favor forcing my morality on other Americans
So, according to your morality, women have to say no, but not men....

So, according to your morality, women have to say no, but not men....

Learn how to read. It will benefit you greatly. Work especially on comprehension. Maybe you'll remember that I'm not the one having a problem taking a stand. That would be you.

Learn how to read. It will benefit you greatly. Work especially on comprehension. Maybe you'll remember that I'm not the one having a problem taking a stand. That would be you.
Again, all you have in your pocket is shaming and insults.

So, according to your morality, women have to say no, but not men.


It is the woman who has the option of saying No, and so should be responsible for outcomes in their own body and life. The point is, it is not necessary to have sexual relationships, there is no moral imperative to do so, but men shouldn't have to be responsible to make decisions for both

The problem might be solved by fining both for an unwanted pregnancy

It is the woman who has the option of saying No, and so should be responsible for outcomes in their own body and life.
Then be a woman (you don't even have to be pretty) and find out for yourself.

Complicated question. Ideally, I would say that since this woman did not ask the taxpayer's advice prior to becoming pregnant, then she should not ask for the taxpayer's help after becoming pregnant. But I would be open to continuing the current welfare system, brought about by the utter refusal of people like Tal and WG to take a simple stand in favor of protecting women and children from single parent hardship, so long as it was set to no longer be in effect beginning in twelve months. The taxpayer should not be on the hook for decisions he/she had no input on.

Now personally and individually I would be glad to help out a single mom in need, but I do not favor forcing my morality on other Americans like you want to do.

I know many single parents and they are doing rather well considering where they came from, but thanks for answering the question. The good news is the law both federal and state is clear on administering this social safety net already, so I will decline your offer to stand with you in demanding women just say no to sex before and outside of marriage, as well as men. While I respect your position, you want the law changed you know how to do that so stop blaming me and WG for your issues with that law.

so I will decline your offer to stand with you in demanding women just say no to sex before and outside of marriage, as well as men.

I didn't say we would "demand" anything or put it into law. Just join together to raise a standard of sensible behavior. I'm genuinely amazed that you would decline such an offer. I guess it's easier to force your morality on other Americans by using our tax money to support these single moms who should never have become a single mom to begin with, and might not have done so if more Americans (like you) would object to reckless sexual behavior. I never cease to be surprised at how so many liberals will refuse even the most sensible idea imaginable lest someone might accuse them of having become a conservative. So we'll just let these poor women continue to diminish the quality of their own lives as well as their children's lives. In the meantime, we can amuse ourselves with endless platitudes about the need for men to control themselves, which is of course true, but all the while choosing to ignore the fundamental truth that men don't get pregnant.

I didn't say we would "demand" anything or put it into law. Just join together to raise a standard of sensible behavior. I'm genuinely amazed that you would decline such an offer. I guess it's easier to force your morality on other Americans by using our tax money to support these single moms who should never have become a single mom to begin with, and might not have done so if more Americans (like you) would object to reckless sexual behavior. I never cease to be surprised at how so many liberals will refuse even the most sensible idea imaginable lest someone might accuse them of having become a conservative. So we'll just let these poor women continue to diminish the quality of their own lives as well as their children's lives. In the meantime, we can amuse ourselves with endless platitudes about the need for men to control themselves, which is of course true, but all the while choosing to ignore the fundamental truth that men don't get pregnant.

There is nothing else for it bring back the chastity belt and lock them in

There is nothing else for it bring back the chastity belt and lock them in
Oooooh, and then the men will get REALLY mad when all their cooing and cajoling go nowhere!

I didn't say we would "demand" anything or put it into law. Just join together to raise a standard of sensible behavior. I'm genuinely amazed that you would decline such an offer. I guess it's easier to force your morality on other Americans by using our tax money to support these single moms who should never have become a single mom to begin with, and might not have done so if more Americans (like you) would object to reckless sexual behavior. I never cease to be surprised at how so many liberals will refuse even the most sensible idea imaginable lest someone might accuse them of having become a conservative. So we'll just let these poor women continue to diminish the quality of their own lives as well as their children's lives. In the meantime, we can amuse ourselves with endless platitudes about the need for men to control themselves, which is of course true, but all the while choosing to ignore the fundamental truth that men don't get pregnant.

Women don't have to either. They have other options other than the ONE you present. The rest of your post I just don't buy into, and has NOTHING to do with political persuasion.

Yes, they have other options. However, the one you advocate for is to get other people to pay for their decisions. I don't want to be forced by Tal (and other liberals) to pay for a decision in which I had no part. Now if you want to be forced to pay for it, then go for it, but I would bet that is not the case.

Unmarried pregnancy used to be a shameful thing, but that changed during the '70s and forward.






The shame inflicted on unwed mothers was designed to support marriage.

Yes, they have other options. However, the one you advocate for is to get other people to pay for their decisions. I don't want to be forced by Tal (and other liberals) to pay for a decision in which I had no part. Now if you want to be forced to pay for it, then go for it, but I would bet that is not the case.

No the one I advocate for is to see her doctor/OGY/GYN ASAP. Like the knowledgeable well insured middle class counterpart, who doesn't let you in her business, nor gives a rats patoot about YOUR religious moral judgements. That only leaves the poorer less educated female to judge and bully. If you ever have read my posts in other forums abstinence is my first choice for unwanted pregnancies that is 100% guaranteed to work. Women have gotten pregnant using one and two forms of birth control. You would know that if you weren't strictly stuck in your own narrow view of the way the world has works, or weren't so obsessed by controlling others with your supposed god given authority.

You are forced to do nothing and all Americans agreed to follow the law, and pay taxes for what a duly elected government deems fit, despite your soaring exaggerated rhetoric.

The shame inflicted on unwed mothers was designed to support marriage.

More like entitled judgement and manipulation on helpless females. The good news is they don't stay helpless long and have been standing on their own in growing numbers.

The shame inflicted on unwed mothers was designed to support marriage.


More like entitled judgement and manipulation on helpless females. The good news is they don't stay helpless long and have been standing on their own in growing numbers.





I get it, Marriage is out, Family is out. The state has it under control, what could possibly go wrong? Welcome to the Brave new world.

No the one I advocate for is to see her doctor/OGY/GYN ASAP.

Fine with me.


who doesn't let you in her business, nor gives a rats patoot about YOUR religious moral judgements.

You sure are doing a lot of moral judging yourself for a guy who claims to be against it.


If you ever have read my posts in other forums abstinence is my first choice for unwanted pregnancies that is 100% guaranteed to work. Women have gotten pregnant using one and two forms of birth control. You would know that if you weren't strictly stuck in your own narrow view of the way the world has works, or weren't so obsessed by controlling others with your supposed god given authority.

Funny how liberals are so opposed to Christians expressing their moral point of view, but have no problems with imposing their own morality on others. You have a moral point of view. I have a moral point of view. Yours results in the devastating out of wedlock birth rates we currently have. Mine will not. Take your pick.

I'm not opposed to you expressing your views at al,l but holier than thou doesn't work for me. Specifically when you get on the high horse of I'm right, you're wrong meme which that last sentence typifies.



Yours results in the devastating out of wedlock birth rates we currently have. Mine will not. Take your pick.

I'm for birth control, you are for abstinence, that much is clear, but it's not up to either of us what individuals choose to do, a fact I have learned to accept. I must correct you though because practicing safe sex, and using BC does not lead to more out of wedlock births and have cited many times that it's more about being aware and educated on what to do, and having the resources to actually tap into those GOOD options are the areas that need the most attention in my view.

When you present but one solution as you do, then you lose your audience who is smart enough to know better. When you attack PP for example because all options and services are on the table for a small part of the services offered then you lose credibility at least with me, that you actually care about the lives of those you seek to deprive of options, solutions, love and support. It's no surprise that your one solution seems to be rejected by those you seek to influence. The whole notion that their lives have been devastated by unwanted pregnancy as opposed to a challenge to rise to is a concept you cannot grasp, and blaming others who STEAL your money to help those facing the challenge is patently misguided and counterproductive, and wholly inaccurate in my book.

I respectfully submit that neither of us controls others, and we can only react after the deed is done. As long as the world is what it is, populated by flawed humans, then you better have more than one tool in your tool box, because they just won't come to you for help. Groceries maybe, but not HELP. Most are not just addicts, or convicts either, as you well know, they are just ordinary humans. Are some better than others? NO!

Back to YOU!

I'm for birth control, you are for abstinence, that much is clear

I don't know where you get this stuff from. This is my proposal from earlier: "I often am amazed at just how it is that liberals will not do even a wildly common-sense call such as to tell young women not to get pregnant out of wedlock." That is what you would not agree to, but perhaps now you are.There is no mention of abstinence there. You are doing what you frequently do which is to just make things up out of thin air. At any rate, we are swimming in an ocean of birth control and you see how well it is working. Back in the first half of the 20th century, when bc methods were pretty crude compared to now, out of wedlock births were rare. Most women who get pregnant now do so either out of raw carelessness or simply intend to do so. Now abstinence is the best course, but bc is better than nothing.

As for PP, you don't know the facts. They are the #1 abortion provider in the U.S. and routinely sell organs "harvested" from aborted fetuses. I know you are OK with that, but I am not. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of other clinics that provide services for women other than PP.


The whole notion that their lives have been devastated by unwanted pregnancy as opposed to a challenge to rise to is a concept you cannot grasp,

You are living in a liberal fantasy world if you believe that single parenthood is not a poor decision for both the mom and her child. Statistics are cold, hard reality, and the stats bear this out very plainly to those who actually want to know the truth.

Your ignorance of science both past and present probably makes you a climate change denier to so it's pointless to feed you data but one fact you may understand is the need for abortions may be trending down without your fire and brimstone outlook. Oh I guess you think a nice speech will bring instant success? I know it's a pet peeve of yours, but it's only one of many challenges we face.

No organs can be harvested in the US without consent, unless you are a human with criminal intent.

Your ignorance of science both past and present probably makes you a climate change denier to so it's pointless to feed you data but one fact you may understand is the need for abortions may be trending down without your fire and brimstone outlook.

I was a science major in college and a science teacher as well. I will be more than happy to discuss any area of science you wish to go into. I look forward to seeing any data you wish to bring forward.


No organs can be harvested in the US without consent, unless you are a human with criminal intent.

The unborn baby is being killed without his/her consent. And according to CNN, "Planned Parenthood has countered that it donates the tissue for scientific research and receives only reimbursement for its expenses, which is legal. The group also says it helps people donate tissue "with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards," according to a statement from spokesman Eric Ferrero."

So it is being done whether you want to acknowledge it or not. And, of course, in the liberal world, selling fetal organs is fine so long as the mother gave her permission. I'm glad I don't live in your world.

You do live in my world, and have acknowledged the LEGALITY of PP's policy in the area of organ harvesting which most hospitals also do. As a man of science you also know the importance of research into the cure and treatments of the many diseases that plague man. Stem cell research is at the cutting edge of that research. So welcome to my world, whether you like it or not.

Poor uncle Joe is finally announcing his candidacy for president. You down with that, or is it still the dufus despite the scathing Mueller Report hanging over his head as he stalls congress bringing facts to the American people. There is also news out that he cannot deal with the Russians cyber attacks on our democracy despite the overwhelming evidence they and others are gearing up for the next election.

Don't mean to change the subject, but there are others issues besides abortion and the ridicules fetal consent argument you wish to engage in.

You do live in my world, and have acknowledged the LEGALITY of PP's policy in the area of organ harvesting which most hospitals also do.

I never quite know what to say to a response like that. Slavery was legal. Jim Crow laws were legal. Killing Jews was legal in Germany. Killing the opposition was legal in the USSR. PP kills unborn children and sells the body parts. You are fine with that since it is "legal". I'm glad I am not in your position.


As a man of science you also know the importance of research into the cure and treatments of the many diseases that plague man. Stem cell research is at the cutting edge of that research. So welcome to my world, whether you like it or not.

The last I heard, there is no need to "harvest" stem cells from unborn children. There are several other sources that work quite well. But if we are going to look at other human beings as nothing more than a source of material to benefit us, why not just take hearts, kidneys, livers, and other organs from newborn infants. After all, if they are just there to serve us, as you seem to believe, and if being human is no longer important, then what would the objection be?


You down with that, or is it still the dufus despite the scathing Mueller Report hanging over his head as he stalls congress bringing facts to the American people. There is also news out that he cannot deal with the Russians cyber attacks on our democracy despite the overwhelming evidence they and others are gearing up for the next election.

"Scathing Mueller report" Now that made me laugh. The report finds no evidence of collusion, but it is "scathing". Funny.

As to the Russkies, who was the pres during the last election cycle when they evidently attempted to influence our election? Did he "deal with the Russians cyber attacks"? Evidently not.

I never quite know what to say to a response like that. Slavery was legal. Jim Crow laws were legal. Killing Jews was legal in Germany. Killing the opposition was legal in the USSR. PP kills unborn children and sells the body parts. You are fine with that since it is "legal". I'm glad I am not in your position.

Back to this country where abortion and organ harvesting ARE legal NOW. End of story!


The last I heard, there is no need to "harvest" stem cells from unborn children. There are several other sources that work quite well. But if we are going to look at other human beings as nothing more than a source of material to benefit us, why not just take hearts, kidneys, livers, and other organs from newborn infants. After all, if they are just there to serve us, as you seem to believe, and if being human is no longer important, then what would the objection be?


That's very true.


"Scathing Mueller report" Now that made me laugh. The report finds no evidence of collusion, but it is "scathing". Funny.

You obviously haven't read it, not even the first few pages so let me enlighten you. Collusion was not part of the report and Mueller specifically said he investigated CONSPIRACY since it is a crime, unlike COLLUSION which is NOT. He found no evidence of CONSPIRACY by the dufus. Those nuanced understandings of the LAW are important, as even Barr used collusion to parrot his masters narrative to mislead and deceive just like the dufus. No where was the dufus exonerated of collusion, or obstruction and that's just a fact. Another fact is he could find no evidence of conspiracy was lack of cooperation and destroying evidence by dufus staffers and cohorts. Read the darn thing for yourself, like everyone should.


As to the Russkies, who was the pres during the last election cycle when they evidently attempted to influence our election? Did he "deal with the Russians cyber attacks"? Evidently not.

Intell and national security have been working with the states and locals since before the election of 2016 and there has been continued efforts in that regard since, but the cyber czar and his whole department was gutted, like the civil rights division of DOJ. You should be disturbed by the dufus handling of this issue as we have been warned that the Russians and others are gearing up for the next election so the question becomes what is the dufus doing against this escalating cyber threat.

Back to this country where abortion and organ harvesting ARE legal NOW. End of story!

So on your philosophy, slavery, when it was legal, was just fine.


That's very true.

Wow. That's a stunning answer. You are OK with "harvesting" organs from young infants?? Unbelievable. I have to think I have misunderstood, somehow, your reply.


Another fact is he could find no evidence of conspiracy was lack of cooperation and destroying evidence by dufus staffers and cohorts. Read the darn thing for yourself, like everyone should.

OK. Fine. He was not guilty of conspiracy. He declined to bring charges for obstruction. That's hardly a "scathing report".


Intell and national security have been working with the states and locals since before the election of 2016

So how did that work out for you?

So on your philosophy, slavery, when it was legal, was just fine.

NO! Very much in the same way abortion is legal though you don't like it one bit. I'm not unsympathetic to your basic position.


Wow. That's a stunning answer. You are OK with "harvesting" organs from young infants?? Unbelievable.


They aren't young infants, they are unborn and very much like any subject of organ harvesting DEAD!


OK. Fine. He was not guilty of conspiracy. He declined to bring charges for obstruction. That's hardly a "scathing report".


That was also explained in the report READ IT FOR YOURSELF! There was 10 specific instances of obstruction and to be clear lack of evidence for conspiracy is not exoneration, and in no way a finding of NOT guilty. Actually sweeping and systematic was the way Mueller phrased Russian interference, and the report was scathing because I read it and that's my opinion.

Others will NO DOUBT follow Vlad's playbook if nothing is done to thwart such efforts.


So how did that work out for you?

It got us the dufus maybe, and likely will keep the dufus in office. I find the dufus handling of this issue suspicious and derelict. Obamas wholly inadequate.

Obama's wholly inadequate.

WOW! You finally found something that Obama is not perfect at. Tip of the iceberg stuff there Tal and a revelation for you. Anyone who is fine with killing babies, is fine with a whole lot of stuff, like starting wars on a pretext

NO! Very much in the same way abortion is legal though you don't like it one bit. I'm not unsympathetic to your basic position.

Well, that's progress.


They aren't young infants, they are unborn and very much like any subject of organ harvesting DEAD!

I was talking about young infants, not the unborn. My point was to ask why we would not extend this organ harvesting to the post-born and not just to the pre-born. I mean we could kill the baby, and then it would meet your qualification of being DEAD. Now neither one of us would support that, but I just wonder why you support killing the unborn to harvest organs, but not killing infants. What is the difference to you?

You realize that your post is ludicrous on it's face suggesting we kill infants for the purpose of harvesting organs.

You realize that your post is ludicrous on it's face suggesting we kill infants for the purpose of harvesting organs.

Read more carefully. "Now neither one of us would support that," So I am plainly not suggesting we do that. I am asking you why you believe it is OK to kill unborn children and collect their organs, but not OK to do that after the child has been born. And please don't tell me you're alright with it since it's legal. I'm asking why YOU believe it is morally acceptable. You said killing infants for organs is ludicrous. I agree, but why is killing the unborn not equally ludicrous?

For one you use the term KILL which in itself is an inaccurate term to describe the abortion issue. Most abortions are very early term beginning the day after the dead is done, that's not killing, it's prevention and done much more that the data shows, and is increasing sturdily. Then there is the very early procedure I have described many times with the OBY/GYN limited only by resources and awareness which goes unreported but that option becomes more available also as awareness and resources become available more widely. None of these meets that killing description in my opinion, and is prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

It seems our disagreement is specifics orientated unless you hold the opinion that killing starts at CONCEPTION which is arbitrary at best, and all encompassing and includes prevention. If you want to outlaw any killing then outlaw all killing and don't just stop at the "unborn" child.

For one you use the term KILL which in itself is an inaccurate term to describe the abortion issue. Most abortions are very early term beginning the day after the dead is done, that's not killing, it's prevention and done much more that the data shows, and is increasing sturdily. Then there is the very early procedure I have described many times with the OBY/GYN limited only by resources and awareness which goes unreported but that option becomes more available also as awareness and resources become available more widely. None of these meets that killing description in my opinion, and is prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

So when would you say I could start using the term "kill"? The heartbeat and brainwaves are detectable at eight weeks. Would that be a good place to start? Babies can survive outside the womb at six months. Is that a good place to use the term "kill"? If you want to say that the use of "kill" cannot be at conception, then where would it be accurate, and why would you choose that stage?

My definition is 40 days is adequate for detection and making a decision going forward. I know what the law says but I didn't write it.

What happens at the fortieth day that makes the difference?

I know I'm digging some, but I find that most pro-abortion folks I run into seem not to have thought it through very well, so I'm just wondering how you came up with the figure of 40 days.

I could be wrong being a guy, but 10 days after a missed menstral cycle, would have me wondering if I were a sexualy active female.

The man who WROTE the crime bill of 94 which led to the mass incarceration of black men is now running because he’s worried about white supremacy . OMG thank you Uncle Joe for getting into the race . Maybe you can start your campaign by apologizing the Clarence Thomas for the smear job you did to him during his confirmation hearings .

[QUOTE]I could be wrong being a guy, but 10 days after a missed menstral cycle, would have me wondering if I were a sexualy active female.[/QUOT

But again, what happens at the fortieth day that makes the difference?

You should have an idea if you're pregnant or not right? Be a good time for a gyno visit in my book if you don't know or want to be. Not everyone has those options granted, but that's part of the problem.

What does that have to do with the fortieth day? I'm not following you at all. What happens on the fortieth day that justifies using the term "killed"?

You should have an idea if you're pregnant or not right? Be a good time for a gyno visit in my book if you don't know or want to be. Not everyone has those options granted, but that's part of the problem.
Yup, most of us figure out early on if we're pregnant. And that's why PP exists: to give out birth control and explain how to use it, to educate women about their bodies and possible pregnancies, and to refer them to gynos who can help them with their female concerns.

What does that have to do with the fortieth day? I'm not following you at all. What happens on the fortieth day that justifies using the term "killed"?

You asked where I draw MY line and that's where it's at! You don't have to follow my logic.


Yup, most of us figure out early on if we're pregnant. And that's why PP exists: to give out birth control and explain how to use it, to educate women about their bodies and possible pregnancies, and to refer them to gynos who can help them with their female concerns.

It's a really valuable option for resourced stress people, not just women.

You asked where I draw MY line and that's where it's at! You don't have to follow my logic.

I would love to follow your logic, or at least try to, but you have not outlined it. You belittled my belief that life begins at conception, but I know why I believe that. I just wonder why you have identified 40 days as a marker.

Like me you must be for the morning after pill.

I guess that means you don't understand yourself why you chose 40 days. It's sad when we take such a causal attitude towards human life. As I said before, most people who support abortion have not really thought it through.

I tried to explain in simple terms what the significance of 40 days is, but you don't grasp the easy stuff so see it as a first step in a process to reach a decision. If that's a concept that's beyond you say so.

I tried to explain in simple terms what the significance of 40 days is, but you don't grasp the easy stuff so see it as a first step in a process to reach a decision. If that's a concept that's beyond you say so.

You rambled on about a woman becoming pregnant and seeing her doctor. You did not say what it is about an unborn baby that qualifies the use of the word "kill" at forty days. Sadly, you don't really seem to know what you believe.

Only to a sick mind can you call suggesting a female see a doctor to confirm and consult with when pregnancy is suspected, rambling. For a hardline religious nut you have no clue about Good Orderly Direction. I don't believe I would send her to YOU and that's for sure.

Only to a sick mind can you call suggesting a female see a doctor to confirm and consult with when pregnancy is suspected, rambling. For a hardline religious nut you have no clue about Good Orderly Direction. I don't believe I would send her to YOU and that's for sure.

Rather than becoming angry and resorting to what you claim to not like which is name calling, you might just want to admit that you don't really know why forty days has any real significance to the unborn child. I find this to be true of most liberals. When pressed to explain why they believe in _____, they really don't know, so since they cannot appeal to reason or truth, they just get mad and start referring to "sick minds" and "hardline religious nuts". If you do figure out what 40 days has to do with the life of the fetus, then get back with us.

You forgot to use the dumb statement font that you resort to when you got nothing. It's none of your business to begin with since you only care about what YOU believe. It's all good dude, because I've been doing my thing a long time and have no need for your approval or permission or assumptions. You may get away with frustrating others but you lack any capacity to frustrate me let alone piss me off.

Yes I'll be back when it dawns on you what 40 days means in relationship to female physiology. Ask your wife and daughter, or almost any woman and I bet they can relate, even if you cannot. Sad for a supposed learned older fellow, but you came to the right place to learn. Or did you come to throw rocks?

Doesn't matter I can do them both. Back to you.

You forgot to use the dumb statement font that you resort to when you got nothing. It's none of your business to begin with since you only care about what YOU believe. It's all good dude, because I've been doing my thing a long time and have no need for your approval or permission or assumptions. You may get away with frustrating others but you lack any capacity to frustrate me let alone piss me off.

Yes I'll be back when it dawns on you what 40 days means in relationship to female physiology. Ask your wife and daughter, or almost any woman and I bet they can relate, even if you cannot. Sad for a supposed learned older fellow, but you came to the right place to learn. Or did you come to throw rocks?

This is kind of strange. I am simply trying to get you to explain the significance of 40 days for the FETUS, since that is what we are talking about. You said that after 40 days we can use the term "kill" in relation to an abortion. I am simply asking you how you arrived at that conclusion in relationship to the unborn child. You have said absolutely nothing in relation to that. Not one word. You have only discussed a woman's period (roughly 30 days) and then some 10 day window for her to see her doctor and, I presume, arrange for an abortion, and thus you arrived at 40 days. But that says nothing about why it is alright to destroy the unborn child prior to 40 days. That's what I am trying to get you to explain. So far, no luck. You are plainly frustrated and irritated, but that doesn't provide an explanation. Now you can just drop it if you want to, but I would hope, with a human life at stake, you would have thought this through better than you seem to have done.

JL: you might just want to admit that you don't really know why forty days has any real significance to the unborn child.
Tal explained it very well. Please review ALL his comments. Forty days into a pregnancy is ABOUT six weeks (40 divided by 7). Six weeks means the woman has very likely missed one period and suspects she might be pregnant. From bellybelly.com --
"At 6 weeks pregnant, your baby starts to look a little like a jellybean and is about 4-5mm long – the size of a grain of rice! Babies at this age are measured from crown to rump (i.e. head to bottom), so the measurement excludes his or her legs."

Maybe she's unmarried, in high school or college. Maybe she's even younger. Maybe she's married and already has six kids, can't afford another one, and apparently the birth control didn't work. Maybe she was raped by a date who would accept no as an answer or a stranger or an angry ex or her uncle. Now what?

Tal has said nothing about the fetus. You at least directed part of your comments to the fetus. You seem to be saying that the size of the child is the determining factor. Saying it is the size of a grain of rice is inaccurate. More like several grains of rice, which is not huge, but plainly visible. As to the married woman with six kids, would you be OK with killing one of the children? If not, then why is it OK to kill the unborn one? That is the great question in this debate you guys run from. If it is OK to kill a human being, then why do you draw the line at birth? Tal said 40 days. WG can't bring herself to say anything about it. If you would answer that one question honestly, the question of why it is OK to kill the unborn child but not OK to kill a child after birth, that would be a wonderful step forward in this discussion.

BTW, here's your "jellybean" at five weeks. Hands, feet, head, eyes, everything present. Means nothing to you and Tal and that is sad. The second pic below is at ten weeks. Completely legal to be killed at that point for any reason. WG and Tal will, I guess, yawn and go on about their day when it happens, as it does many thousands of times a year.

http://www.bounty.com/~/media/d6a7c3469bfe4096a3251b513fed60f1.ashx?h=222&w=222& la=en



http://keepvitality.com/img/2016/11/week10.jpg

While I may be against abortions, I must respect the right of a woman to choose her own direction. I or you or anybody else has NO right to dictate what her choice is. Thank you WG for that timely interjection of common sense, and respect for your fellow woman. I respect your position and passion, JL, but I have made my position clear long ago to YOU, on this and other subjects. We're not likely to change each others minds nor it seems we can insult each other enough. I don't take it personally, because frankly who cares since neither of us has that authority over each other to make any meaningful difference.

Meanwhile that's MY choice how I treat the life of a pregnant female, and her CHOICE, despite the ridicules rant comparing children to unborn fetus's. Like you care for either. They are hardly the only ones dying in this world.

Meanwhile that's MY choice how I treat the life of a pregnant female, and her CHOICE, despite the ridicules rant comparing children to unborn fetus's.

Sadly, the millions of children who never got the chance to live had no choice at all.


despite the ridicules rant comparing children to unborn fetus's. Like you care for either. They are hardly the only ones dying in this world.

No, it's the unborn who are dying. I notice you did not answer my question. It's really the big question in this whole discussion. Why is it alright to kill a baby before it is born but not afterwards? Honestly, when you look at the picture of, at the very least, the 10 week fetus, do you really see something unworthy of protection? If you do, then respectfully, you would seem to have a heart of stone.

Yeah it is kind of sad I agree, unfortunately abortions and induced miscarriages are part of the history of man going back to the beginning, and few advertised the event. They still don't. All you can cry over are the ones you know about. It's just not realistic to think you will stop it, even as you seek to shut PP down. What's that going to accomplish? It just drives the deed underground and out of your sight. Still it will happen until we get to the point there is no need.



Why is it alright to kill a baby before it is born but not afterwards?

You'll just have to use your common sense on this one, and live with your own conscious like we all do, and obey the law, or maybe step up and commit to taking these babies in your own house, and not pass that responsibility to others who clearly don't want it. I know you won't like my answer, but it is my answer. Chunk your rocks if you want to, but the answer won't change, and I will just chunk the rocks back at you.

Do what you have to do though because I darned sure will.

While I may be against abortions, I must respect the right of a woman to choose her own direction. I or you or anybody else has NO right to dictate what her choice is.


Who left it up to the child to decide... child as in, pregnant teenager. Either way they should be told the truth. Abortion effects more than the one person.

Who left it up to the child to decide... child as in, pregnant teenager. Either way they should be told the truth. Abortion effects more than the one person.

A teen by law can make their own choice once they reach 18, so I assume you mean younger, and by law parental/guardian has to give consent for such a matter.

A teen by law can make their own choice once they reach 18, so I assume you mean younger, and by law parental/guardian has to give consent for such a matter.


Don't let them fool you.


Nearly every state has judicial bypass options that allow a pregnant teenager to obtain a judge’s permission to proceed with an abortion without involving her parents. Furthermore, some states allow a physician to waive parental involvement, and some allow a teen to have a professional counseling instead of parental involvement.

You'll just have to use your common sense on this one, and live with your own conscious like we all do, and obey the law, or maybe step up and commit to taking these babies in your own house, and not pass that responsibility to others who clearly don't want it. I know you won't like my answer, but it is my answer.

In other words, you don't know why you believe what you believe, which is what I find to be true of most liberals.

In other words, you don't know why you believe what you believe, which is what I find to be true of most liberals.
Why must you always shame a responder?

Don't let them fool you.


Nearly every state has judicial bypass options that allow a pregnant teenager to obtain a judge’s permission to proceed with an abortion without involving her parents. Furthermore, some states allow a physician to waive parental involvement, and some allow a teen to have a professional counseling instead of parental involvement.


Yes they do and I recognize that beyond that there are still ways for underage teens to get what they want. It's not a perfect world by any means.

You have not yet become a responder since you have not answered the question. Anyway, it is not my ambition to shame anyone, but to cause people to think a little about why they believe what they believe. It is not an insignificant question, but rather it is one that every American should think carefully about and be able to answer. Lives are at stake. But if you guys want to drop it, we'll just drop it.

In other words, you don't know why you believe what you believe, which is what I find to be true of most liberals.

That was uncalled for and completely untrue. Talk about making stuff up! That's like saying ALL conservatives are against abortion, or ALL Christians for that matter. I think it's the right way to go for me, your disagreement notwithstanding.


Why must you always shame a responder?

That's beyond JL's capacity! I am firm in what I believe, he knows that but you know how those hardline religious types are WG.

You have not yet become a responder since you have not answered the question. Anyway, it is not my ambition to shame anyone, but to cause people to think a little about why they believe what they believe. It is not an insignificant question, but rather it is one that every American should think carefully about and be able to answer. Lives are at stake. But if you guys want to drop it, we'll just drop it.
The responder was Tal, not me, whom you were shaming (this time). Now I finally understand you. What you post does not get people to think but instead to become defensive or frustrated with your inability (unwillingness?) to engage in an honest and hopefully fruitful discussion.

That was uncalled for and completely untrue. Talk about making stuff up! That's like saying ALL conservatives are against abortion, or ALL Christians for that matter. I think it's the right way to go for me, your disagreement notwithstanding.

Not sure what part you are suggesting is untrue, but in saying that you cannot explain why you believe it is OK to kill an unborn child but not OK to kill a child already born, it sure seems to be true. Don't mean to be shocking, but it would be nice to see some people who might actually think, "Dear Lord. What if abortion really is the taking of an innocent life? Maybe I should be sure that is not the case before I support it."

It has been my experience in life that liberals generally do not seem to think through what they believe. It is, of course, also true of some conservatives, and has been true of me in the past on more than one occasion. Thankfully, I do have some people around me who will call me out on that when I do it.


The responder was Tal, not me, whom you were shaming. Now I finally understand you.

Why not become one now?

You have not yet become a responder since you have not answered the question. Anyway, it is not my ambition to shame anyone, but to cause people to think a little about why they believe what they believe. It is not an insignificant question, but rather it is one that every American should think carefully about and be able to answer. Lives are at stake. But if you guys want to drop it, we'll just drop it.

I thought about it long ago, and hope it gets better. Your just being a hardnose dude wrapped around your own self righteousness. Thanks for caring and sharing, but I really need no provocation to consider this subject. Or most others one old goat to another.

I thought about it long ago, and hope it gets better. Your just being a hardnose dude wrapped around your own self righteousness. Thanks for caring and sharing, but I really need no provocation to consider this subject. Or most others one old goat to another.

Am I hardnosed? OK. I'll take that one. Self-righteous? No. My righteousness comes from Christ by faith. I absolutely believe I should be able to explain why I believe in whatever. When it comes to abortion, it just amazes me that anyone could look at those two pics posted above and continue to support abortion, and not even stop to consider the question I posted above. If you can't answer that, then your conscience should keep you awake at night.

Why not become one now?
I will if you ask an honest question. I will respond with a well-thought-out answer. Then ask me a related question, and I will continue the discussion with another well-thought-out response. Maybe it would help if we numbered each question along with the answer received. E.g., 1) JL's Q: What is your name? WG's A: My name is WG. 2) WG's Q. What's your name? JL's A: My name is JL.

Well, I've already asked an honest question and have received no answer at all. But OK, I like the concept. Fire away, but just be aware that you already know what my first question will be. I'm a little leary of this with you since, in my view, you have a history of extraordinary evasiveness, but go ahead and ask.

->You have not yet become a responder since you have not answered the question.
->It has been my experience in life that liberals generally do not seem to think through what they believe.
->When it comes to abortion, it just amazes me that anyone could look at those two pics posted above and continue to support abortion.
->If you can't answer that, then your conscience should keep you awake at night.
Shaming comments.... Please stop.


Well, I've already asked an honest question and have received no answer at all. But OK, I like the concept. Fire away, but just be aware that you already know what my first question will be. I'm a little leary of this with you since, in my view, you have a history of extraordinary evasiveness, but go ahead and ask.
You didn't need to post all the verbal debris. All you needed to say was, "OK, I like the concept! My first question is...."

You want me to go first?


Shaming comments.... Please stop.

They were, in my view, not shaming comments but thought-provoking.


OK, if you want me to go first, I'll start with this. 1. Is there a MORAL difference between killing an unborn child and killing a child already born? If so, what is the difference?

Define whose morals

Typical leftist, avoiding the moral imperative

They were, in my view, not shaming comments but thought-provoking.

Had I said any of these to you,

->You have not yet become a responder since you have not answered the question.
->It has been my experience in life that conservatives generally do not seem to think through what they believe.
->When it comes to abortion, it just amazes me that anyone could look at those two pics posted above and continue to deny abortion to desperate women.
->If you can't answer that, then your conscience should keep you awake at night.

the aspens would still be quaking!

Typical leftist, avoiding the moral imperative

Whose moral imperative?

Had I said any of these to you,

->You have not yet become a responder since you have not answered the question.
->It has been my experience in life that conservatives generally do not seem to think through what they believe.
->When it comes to abortion, it just amazes me that anyone could look at those two pics posted above and continue to deny abortion to desperate women.
->If you can't answer that, then your conscience should keep you awake at night.

the aspens would still be quaking!

If I could not explain my position, I would expect to hear those things and more.

You sure are slow to answer the question.

See everyone tomorrow.

Where's the love, where's the love?

If I could not explain my position, I would expect to hear those things and more.

You sure are slow to answer the question.

See everyone tomorrow.

Do the math, how many times does one have to explain things to you before you get it? All you do is dismiss whatever is told you, so what's the point? Maybe it's you that should give the another's beliefs deeper thought. Who made you the arbiter of truth and morality anyway?

Ask yourself a question is ancient Joe seriously thinking he could carry the load of President. I'm as old as he is, intelligent, but seriously, health has to be a serious issue

how many times does one have to explain things to you before you get it?

One genuine explanation would do it. You are presently at zero.


Ask yourself a question is ancient Joe seriously thinking he could carry the load of President. I'm as old as he is, intelligent, but seriously, health has to be a serious issue

Good point to consider.

One genuine explanation would do it. You are presently at zero.

Is it your inability to comprehend, or the unwillingness to comprehend?

Are you just stuck in the crap of your own self appointed moral superiority, or to closed minded to take in different ideas?

Maybe we should just drop this subject as it has devolved into a futile exercise in useless proselytization.


Ask yourself a question is ancient Joe seriously thinking he could carry the load of President. I'm as old as he is, intelligent, but seriously, health has to be a serious issue

Not with Joe, he has always been a model of good health at any age. Now the dufus, his only exercise is running his mouth about absolute nonsense and bull crap.

Is it your inability to comprehend, or the unwillingness to comprehend?

Are you just stuck in the crap of your own self appointed moral superiority, or to closed minded to take in different ideas?

Maybe we should just drop this subject as it has devolved into a futile exercise in useless proselytization.

None of the above. You have not provided, in your name calling and finger pointing, an explanation. You need to explain, as no one has done, why you think it should be legal to kill an unborn child but not legal to kill a child after birth. Perhaps your anger is a reflection of your frustration with realizing it is a valid question for which you do not have an answer. Perhaps this will become your awakening.

It may be a valid question in your own closed mind but stupid as hell in mine.

I will ask again, where's the love?
Why are you so eager for us to believe that abortionist are helping women, how they have helped so many over the years. Must we remind you that someone necessarily must die in the process. "But it's legal." Sadly, legal is not always synonymous with right. In January of 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion throughout all 40 weeks of pregnancy. More than 60 million people have been aborted since then. But we have believed lies: that children are a burden—not a blessing, that when in crisis, eliminating a pregnancy will fix things.

Be a force for good. Speak for those who have no voice, show "love" to despairing women, share your resources, your home. With our words and our actions, we can refute the lie that this abortionist and our culture speaks because, ALL babies are wanted. Deadly indifference to protecting life isn't tangential to the abortion industry's barbaric practices-but at its very core.

I will ask again, where's the love?




Love for those who get abortions -- the thirteen-year-old girl whose uncle got her pregnant while sexually molesting her. Love for the young woman who was gang-raped while walking back to her college dorm after an evening class. Love for the woman on a date with a so-far wonderful man who decided he wouldn't accept her "no."

Love form the Abortionists- acting as if abortions are an act of love.


The inherent and inhumane attitude that is seemingly pervasive in the abortion industry, dehumanizing not only the preborn babies they kill, but the women who come to them for help as well. And on top of this, there is a glorification of abortion, not as a “necessary evil” but as something to be celebrated and cheered. Abortion is a violent act. In the first trimester, when new research indicates preborn babies can feel pain. Seeing these attitudes on display from abortionists, it’s not difficult to see why they receive so little respect from the medical community, and are seen as "the lowest of the low."








This is not love...trading the truth for a lie.

So if we said, "OK. We'll consent to abortions in those types of cases," would you be prepared to outlaw abortions in other cases?

I guess this is question #2.

So if we said, "OK. We'll consent to abortions in those types of cases," would you be prepared to outlaw abortions in other cases?

I guess this is question #2.
Are you tawkin' to me, Willis?

Evidently not.

Evidently not.
waltero was in the thread, too. Wasn't sure if you were asking him. Please address me by name if you ask me specifically. Thank you.

Remember my observation? "Extraordinary evasiveness" was the actual quote. And thus we see it exhibited.

waltero was in the thread, too. Wasn't sure if you were asking him.



What was question #1?



Remember my observation? "Extraordinary evasiveness" was the actual quote. And thus we see it exhibited.

True Dat!

Remember my observation? "Extraordinary evasiveness" was the actual quote. And thus we see it exhibited.

Consider it's not the question we evade, but the behavior of the asker. Condescending and dismissive are not engaging qualities.

What was question #1?
JL's questions so far:

1. Is there a MORAL difference between killing an unborn child and killing a child already born? If so, what is the difference?

2. OK. We'll (i.e., JL will) consent to abortions in these types of cases: the thirteen-year-old girl whose uncle got her pregnant while sexually molesting her, the young woman who was gang-raped while walking back to her college dorm after an evening class, the woman on a date with a so-far wonderful man who decided he wouldn't accept her "no." Would you be prepared to outlaw abortions in other cases?

the thirteen-year-old girl whose uncle got her pregnant while sexually molesting her, the young woman who was gang-raped while walking back to her college dorm after an evening class, the woman on a date with a so-far wonderful man who decided he wouldn't accept her "no."

An Unwanted pregnancy (child) is a unwanted pregnancy? People might find having a child traumatizing, might hold true for abortions too. I'm sure they will need a lifetime of therapy regardless.

with all the talk about diversity ;the top 3 Dem candidates are white dudes . lol

Democrats struggle with diversity. The Dem gov of New Jersey removed the flag of Mississippi because, he said, "New Jersey is rooted in diversity, and the flag doesn't fit." Now I am not a supporter of that flag, but I wonder if it occurred to him for even a second that diversity requires that I tolerate that with which I don't necessarily agree? How can you promote diversity by narrowing the field of ideas? Now he could have said that the confederate battle emblem on the flag promotes inequality, and that would have been a reasonable objection, but "the flag doesn't fit" into diversity? Actually, that flag would promote diversity. Perhaps not in a good way, but still would promote diversity.

The reason they struggle with diversity is because they divide people into subsect and groups of interests . Eventually the rights and privileges of one minority group will run counter to the rights and privileges of another .

Democrats struggle with diversity. The Dem gov of New Jersey removed the flag of Mississippi because, he said, "New Jersey is rooted in diversity, and the flag doesn't fit." Now I am not a supporter of that flag, but I wonder if it occurred to him for even a second that diversity requires that I tolerate that with which I don't necessarily agree? How can you promote diversity by narrowing the field of ideas? Now he could have said that the confederate battle emblem on the flag promotes inequality, and that would have been a reasonable objection, but "the flag doesn't fit" into diversity? Actually, that flag would promote diversity. Perhaps not in a good way, but still would promote diversity.

Would you expect the Jewish community to tolerate the Nazi swastika? Of course not, so can we apply the same standard to the symbols and statutes of the slave days? I don't think we want that kind of diversity, why would you?

The reason they struggle with diversity is because they divide people into subsect and groups of interests . Eventually the rights and privileges of one minority group will run counter to the rights and privileges of another .

Nature of the beast. Diversity is like a kitchen with many chefs, kind of messy until the it's actually presented for consumption. For sure it will be a while until the dems serve up the nominee. The process calls for consensus though and it's rather early.

Would you expect the Jewish community to tolerate the Nazi swastika? Of course not, so can we apply the same standard to the symbols and statutes of the slave days? I don't think we want that kind of diversity, why would you?

"Why would you?" If you will read my post carefully, the part that said, "Now he could have said that the confederate battle emblem on the flag promotes inequality, and that would have been a reasonable objection," then you will have your answer. But you cannot exclude something and then say you are promoting diversity unless you simply don't understand what the word "diversity" means. That is one reason that I am generally not a fan of the concept of diversity.

What's your definition of diversity?

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/58755152_10155897699392471_9217361852894281728_n.j pg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_eui2=AeHxE8oqPCQVTpEfca28qmSkO4tctNWmaQSqIsr35 20bF3qcZaltp6Vm-AsCopCEoNfbp2r0w1PsrEX36H68hNiNxU-19VyuZF-KJ4a2iiNsSQ&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=dcfca33cd88068156f05e6ef7cde660e&oe=5D345F1B

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/171/17180/1718057.gif
https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/171/17164/1716453.gif

What's your definition of diversity?

This is probably the modern, politically correct version: the inclusion of individuals representing more than one national origin, color, religion,socioeconomic stratum, sexual orientation, etc.:

you seriously putting your eggs in the Trump tower meeting ? That meeting was set up by Fusion GPS .Natalya Veselnitskaya was a client of Glenn Simpson .

The information she brought with her when she met Donald Trump Jr. came from research conducted by Fusion GPS .When she met with Don Jr and Kushner all she talked about was the Magnistsky act ;which was about Americans adopting Russian children.

Don Jr. did nothing wrong in setting up this meeting.
No campaign in American history would pass up the opportunity of receiving dirt on their opponents.


Somebody colluded with Russia, and it wasn’t the Trump campaign .
Veselnitskaya was working to repeal the Magnitsky Act for the Kremlin
with Fusion GPS.

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/58461269_10155898630597471_3648246084234379264_n.j pg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_eui2=AeGc5VVIqBHvSXBeZjR4vsgyRU2hsECpfe4_WxKR1 j_mjtjX0sl9CNelMgusHcBhGW7eKg9o48FYMu0sG-LWNLR_xWt-c9YHhGwpLMPqCaA48g&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=d8973ac205b517325b2e0382fe5ee063&oe=5D765582

you seriously putting your eggs in the Trump tower meeting ? That meeting was set up by Fusion GPS .Natalya Veselnitskaya was a client of Glenn Simpson .

The information she brought with her when she met Donald Trump Jr. came from research conducted by Fusion GPS .When she met with Don Jr and Kushner all she talked about was the Magnistsky act ;which was about Americans adopting Russian children.

Don Jr. did nothing wrong in setting up this meeting.
No campaign in American history would pass up the opportunity of receiving dirt on their opponents.


Somebody colluded with Russia, and it wasn’t the Trump campaign .
Veselnitskaya was working to repeal the Magnitsky Act for the Kremlin
with Fusion GPS.





We differ on that because most Americans would notify the FBI about being contacted by the Russians, and wouldn't lie about it repeatedly. Clearly they didn't need a signed contract for that but two criminal enterprises often dance well together if they can profit from it, and they have. Vlad has even moved in on the Dufus's main squeeze Korean Kim and if you think that's good for America then don't bend over.

Make it worse, the dufus lied about his knowledge of the meeting. WHY THE LIES about Russian contacts and why oh why was Manaafort passing on campaign data to the Ruskies?

Naw, we got plenty of baskets and not enough eggs for them all.

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/171/17143/1714351.gif

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cache/lw600/171/17178/1717852.jpg


This is probably the modern, politically correct version: the inclusion of individuals representing more than one national origin, color, religion,socioeconomic stratum, sexual orientation, etc.:

The dems certainly look the part.

Yep. Gross inefficiency based upon a numbers game. That is the democrat party. In the meantime, Trump has the economy practically better than ever.

Voting is a numbers game. That's how all those woman took the house in a very efficient way. We can debate the part about the dufus having the economy humming or not since it's been trending that way for a long time, but no doubt he benefits greatly from it in talking points. Just like all the presidents did before him when the economy was good.

The economy is good because business has confidence, it maybe that despite the obvious trump instills confidence

Business is confident, and rightfully so, since they recovered quickly from the WFC with the bailouts, and the rollbacks on consumer protections and a windfall tax cuts, without giving up any loopholes and deductions. Mainstreet though has not recovered at the same pace and wage stagnation is slowly creeping up, but prices are too, so not everybody is giddy happy, and flush with cash.

They can no longer blame Obama either, so who will the electorate blame this time?

You need to explain why you think it should be legal to kill an unborn child. Perhaps your anger is a reflection of your frustration. Perhaps this will become your awakening.


You need to explain why an unborn child who is an unbeliever will be condemned to eternal punishment in hell. Perhaps your anger is a result of your frustration. Perhaps this will become your awakening.

You need to explain why an unborn child who is an unbeliever will be condemned to eternal punishment in hell. Perhaps your anger is a result of your frustration. Perhaps this will become your awakening.

If I believed that, then I would need to explain it. Since I don't believe that, I don't need to. I'm not angry nor frustrated, but I am certainly open to being enlightened if you would care to answer the question I first raised several days ago which no one has addressed.

Since I don't believe that, I don't need to. I am certainly open to being enlightened if you would care to answer the question I first raised several days ago which no one has addressed.


Then you HAVE become enlightened. That's very good. Your position had been that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. I'm sincerely glad you no longer believe that.

As far as your comment re an answer to a question you first raised several days ago, I am not familiar with it since I come to this page only from time to time. My interest is primarily Trump whose lies, I noticed today, have now reached north of 10,000 since election.

Then you HAVE become enlightened. That's very good. Your position had been that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. I'm sincerely glad you no longer believe that.

A completely ridiculous analysis. To refer to unborn children as unbelievers is totally non-biblical.

Don't feel too badly about not answering the question. No one else has either, which is really disappointing. If I thought that I was possibly voting for people responsible for a million deaths a year, I would hope I would think about it a great deal.

Morality is unique to individuals, the law is NOT. That's what makes your question so stupid as you stated it because under law killing a child or any human is MURDER, not so with a fetus except for the establishment of viability which by law is generally around 20 weeks. Your muleheaded denial of the answers you have gotten which amounts to 2 people by my count, is but proof of dismissal of any thinking other than your own.

Accept that others do not share your passions, or some beliefs, you will get to a better understanding of the answers you have been given. You don't want to hear what others think, just confirm what YOU think! Such callous disregard for others, in my opinion, is why you draw the false equivalence between a fetus and a child, be it by law or moral law of which there is NONE, and as proof I offer the fact a fine human as yourself and religious as all get out can take a moral stance yet follow a PROVEN lying, cheating dufus because he delivers to you the things you want.

That's probably why you cannot that you have gotten answers to your question and accuse us of not have thought about our responses very deeply, because they are not what you want to hear. That's your issue to deal with and no one else's so at least don't LIE about it.

Morality is unique to individuals, the law is NOT. You actually have it backwards. Morality precedes law, and not the other way around. People can have different religious beliefs, but we enact laws based upon moral standards.


That's what makes your question so stupid as you stated it because under law killing a child or any human is MURDER, not so with a fetus except for the establishment of viability which by law is generally around 20 weeks.

You contradict yourself. Killing a fetus after 20 weeks is most certainly not murder in any state. Many states have no limits whatsoever on the age of the fetus. At any rate, my question is absolutely a moral one and therefore of greater importance than law. It could, however, be phrased this way if you prefer a legal manner. Why should it be legal to kill a fetus at 18 weeks, but not at 22 weeks?


accuse us of not have thought about our responses very deeply, because they are not what you want to hear.
Pay closer attention. Yours is the ONLY response so far, and your arugument is basically that it's legal, so it must be alright, which is the same terrible argument used in favor of slavery prior to 1860. Thankfully, many people then felt that the law was immoral even though, being the law, it was legal. I apply the same standard to abortion.

At least you tried.

Baby at seventeen weeks. Look human to you? Do you really believe it should be legal to kill that child? Really?

https://img.etsystatic.com/il/120116/580309653/il_570xN.580309653_i6q6.jpg?version=1

A completely ridiculous analysis. To refer to unborn children as unbelievers is totally non-biblical.


Fair enough. Then please describe what IS biblical when it comes to belief/unbelief in terms of age? Can a 1-year-old be condemned for unbelief? A 5-year-old? 10? 20? 50?



Don't feel too badly about not answering the question.

I don't feel badly at all since I never saw the question and don't know what it is.

Fair enough. Then please describe what IS biblical when it comes to belief/unbelief in terms of age? Can a 1-year-old be condemned for unbelief? A 5-year-old? 10? 20? 50?

Good question. The issue revolves around the guilt of sin. We need a Savior to absolve us of our sin guilt before God. Unborn children have no sin. Infants have no sin. Now when do children reach the age where their awareness of sin would make them accountable before God is a good question. So far as I know, the Bible never directly addresses it, but there are several scriptures that, at least indirectly, refer to it. Dt. 1:39 says, "And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it." Here are many other texts should you care to look at them. But one way or the other, we are not changing the subject here. The question, for your benefit, is this. What is the moral difference between killing an unborn child and killing a child that has been born?

https://www.openbible.info/topics/age_of_accountability

We differ on that because most Americans would notify the FBI about being contacted by the Russians, and wouldn't lie about it repeatedly. most administrations would've notified the candidate that the Russians may be trying to infiltrate their campaign if that was true ; and raised concerns to the candidate about their concerns about Russian ties that Carter Page and Manafort may have had .

No the Trump tower meeting was a set up orchestrated by Glenn Simpson and the Evita campaign as a sting. There was absolutely nothing wrong about having a meeting with someone who claimed to have dirt on their opposing candidate . Campaigns do it all the time . In fact ,the DNC and Evita paid for oppo research from someone who used Russian sources .

People can have different religious beliefs, but we enact laws based upon moral standards.

Ergo abortions are legal and women can have them. Laws are changed and modified all the time in this country. It took a war to end slavery. You have said it's different when there is war and killing is legal, men women and children, so even you have a exception that you allow. That's why I ask whose morality becomes the law, and what is the course of action after the deed is done?

Did you thank the women with 4 kids for NOT having an abortion? Is abstinence the only option you offer going forward? You've never even commented on all those men with a bunch of baby mamas. In a perfect world, maybe you have a strong case, but reality says the world and the people in it are NOT perfect and nothing man does and creates is either, and you have to deal with that REALITY. You want to change the LAW? Okay then you have to ENFORCE it and punish those that break the law.

According to you also, you should pick who you help, and HOW, and that's fine, but what of those you do not help, and no one else does either?

most administrations would've notified the candidate that the Russians may be trying to infiltrate their campaign if that was true ; and raised concerns to the candidate about their concerns about Russian ties that Carter Page and Manafort may have had .

No the Trump tower meeting was a set up orchestrated by Glenn Simpson and the Evita campaign as a sting. There was absolutely nothing wrong about having a meeting with someone who claimed to have dirt on their opposing candidate . Campaigns do it all the time . In fact ,the DNC and Evita paid for oppo research from someone who used Russian sources .

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/fbi-warned-trump-campaign-russia-attempts-infiltrate-spy

That doesn't explain why members of the dufus campaign lied about Russian contact, if it was legit and innocent. My theory is that Vlad played every body and they all were set up. The whole story has yet to emerge.

You have said it's different when there is war and killing is legal, men women and children, so even you have a exception that you allow.

I've never said that.


Did you thank the women with 4 kids for NOT having an abortion? Is abstinence the only option you offer going forward? You've never even commented on all those men with a bunch of baby mamas.

Abstinence is not the only option and I've said that repeatedly. It is the best and only 100% reliable option. And yes, I've commented many times on men who father children and then walk away. It is a terrible thing to do. Are you having memory problems???


In a perfect world, maybe you have a strong case, but reality says the world and the people in it are NOT perfect and nothing man does and creates is either, and you have to deal with that REALITY. You want to change the LAW? Okay then you have to ENFORCE it and punish those that break the law.

It's not a perfect world. OK, so should we then excuse rape? How about murder? How about if someone breaks into your house and takes everything you own at gunpoint. Would you be satisfied if the cops said, "Well, Mr. Tal, we can only do so much. After all, it's not a perfect world?" Why is it that people only drag the "perfect world" argument out when it is someone else who is being killed?


According to you also, you should pick who you help, and HOW, and that's fine, but what of those you do not help, and no one else does either?

If I follow your logic, we could just go up and kill their children. Problem solved and after all, it's not a perfect world. That is exactly the approach you are taking with abortion. You are just killing the children at a different stage of development. Truthfully, in your fearful refusal to take a position of discouraging women from having babies outside of marriage, you are encouraging the very thing you claim to have such charitable impulses for. Your liberal orthodoxy is at the root of this problem. To persuade women to reserve child bearing for marriage is the most charitable, loving thing you can do for them, and yet it is the one thing above all else you will not do.

You have said it's different when there is war and killing is legal, men women and children, so even you have a exception that you allow.



I've never said that.

Sure you did. The reference was your position of those that died in Benghazi, and my rebuttal was those that have died on the Dufus's watch. You can go back and check if you like.



Did you thank the women with 4 kids for NOT having an abortion? Is abstinence the only option you offer going forward? You've never even commented on all those men with a bunch of baby mamas.


Abstinence is not the only option and I've said that repeatedly. It is the best and only 100% reliable option. And yes, I've commented many times on men who father children and then walk away. It is a terrible thing to do. Are you having memory problems???

So you do recommend the morning after pill, or seeing a doctor once pregnancy is suspected and confirmed.


I
n a perfect world, maybe you have a strong case, but reality says the world and the people in it are NOT perfect and nothing man does and creates is either, and you have to deal with that REALITY. You want to change the LAW? Okay then you have to ENFORCE it and punish those that break the law.


It's not a perfect world. OK, so should we then excuse rape? How about murder? How about if someone breaks into your house and takes everything you own at gunpoint. Would you be satisfied if the cops said, "Well, Mr. Tal, we can only do so much. After all, it's not a perfect world?" Why is it that people only drag the "perfect world" argument out when it is someone else who is being killed?

What part of the LAW defines what rape and murder is and the consequences for committing them are you having trouble with? Cops gather facts from victims and TRY to solve the case, and in reality, many go unsolved. You can get emotional at that reality but does that help? Not always. You still have to overcome what reality has dealt you and put your life in order, or stay stuck by what has happened. As you have said everybody struggles. (Some more than others, and I guess it's easy to dismiss the struggles of others-My words.)



According to you also, you should pick who you help, and HOW, and that's fine, but what of those you do not help, and no one else does either?


If I follow your logic, we could just go up and kill their children. Problem solved and after all, it's not a perfect world. That is exactly the approach you are taking with abortion. You are just killing the children at a different stage of development. Truthfully, in your fearful refusal to take a position of encouraging women to not have children outside of marriage, you are encouraging the very thing you claim to have such charitable impulses for. Your liberal orthodoxy is at the root of this problem. To persuade women to reserve child bearing for marriage is the most charitable, loving thing you can do for them, and yet it is the one thing above all else you will not do.

That's not my logic just your spin. My logic is let people make their own decisions and live with the consequences, or the blessings. Your conservative orthodoxy is YOUR right and every body else is wrong. Woman won the right to choose, as they did the vote. I'm not saying your wrong, but clearly the law says you cannot force your orthodoxy on others LEGALLY.

That leaves your only choice is to change the law, and express your displeasure. Neither you nor I can make anyone follow our suggestions, logical though they may be. We are free to act after the deed is done mistakes or not. My suggestion to females, and males, is make decisions based on facts and NO I will not join you promoting your child bearing only when married meme, or abstinence as a mandatory obligation until marriage.

Great ideas but totally voluntary. Are you suggesting laws for that, and enforcement and punishment?

So you do recommend the morning after pill, or seeing a doctor once pregnancy is suspected and confirmed.

Just depends, from your point of view, on how you want to kill a human being. My recommendation is either abstinence or the rigorous use of effective birth control, and above all to honor life.


What part of the LAW defines what rape and murder is and the consequences for committing them are you having trouble with? Cops gather facts from victims and TRY to solve the case, and in reality, many go unsolved. You can get emotional at that reality but does that help? Not always. You still have to overcome what reality has dealt you and put your life in order, or stay stuck by what has happened. As you have said everybody struggles. (Some more than others, and I guess it's easy to dismiss the struggles of others-My words.)

Like I said, that's the philosophy of the man whose wife or daughter was not raped. But one way or the other, to look at hundreds of thousands of deaths a year and just shrug your shoulders and say, "Hey. It's just not a perfect world, so live with it," is not enough for me. The slave owners could have said basically the same thing.


My logic is let people make their own decisions and live with the consequences, or the blessings.

No, your logic is to let people make their own decisions and then force taxpayers to pay for the consequences.


My suggestion to females, and males, is make decisions based on facts and NO I will not join you promoting your child bearing only when married meme, or abstinence as a mandatory obligation until marriage.

Liberal orthodoxy strikes again. And I wish you would stop repeating your intentional lie that I am suggesting abstinence as a mandatory obligation. I've never said that and you know it.

To repeat, I am glad I don't live in a world where I can look at the pic I posted above and say, "Oh well. No big deal." I just can't fathom that kind of thinking.


Sure you did. The reference was your position of those that died in Benghazi, and my rebuttal was those that have died on the Dufus's watch. You can go back and check if you like.

Nope. Never suggested that killing non-combatants is fine and dandy. Besides, the people killed in the attack on the consulate were male terrorists. What women and children are you talking about???