I would not suggest that isn't a concern, but just killing the unborn baby is not the solution. That's why I contend (alone) that we need to press upon young women that getting pregnant out of wedlock is one evermore terrible idea. You seem too busy with your quest to have a government mandated program to sterilize all boys to get too excited over the most basic, common-sense idea on the table.
Ah, I see! You have no solution.

If you don't want people to get pregnant out of wedlock, you've got to do a lot more than "encourage them" not to and "press upon young women" not to. Those are the wimpiest and most ineffective solutions I've ever heard!

Ah, I see! You have no solution.Only because you have your eyes closed. "Don't get pregnant out of wedlock!!"


If you don't want people to get pregnant out of wedlock, you've got to do a lot more than "encourage them" not to and "press upon young women" not to. Those are the wimpiest and most ineffective solutions I've ever heard!It's easy to be snide when you are too fearful to take any position yourself other than the terribly ridiculous and outrageous suggestion of sterilizing all American boys. You do realize how completely foolish and absurd that suggestion makes you look?

If you don't want us to "encourage" or "press upon" people not to engage in harmful activities, then should we stop the advertisements and campaigns against smoking, drug abuse, sexual abuse, or dropping out of high school? Are all of those encouragements the "wimpiest and most ineffective solutions" that you've heard? If not, then why are they different? Is it possible that you are really the wimpy one here for being afraid to discourage out of wedlock births for seemingly no other reason than it contradicts your feminist, liberal political ideals?

Only because you have your eyes closed. "Don't get pregnant out of wedlock!!"
Your solutions are working so well.

It's easy to be snide when you are too fearful to take any position yourself other than the terribly ridiculous and outrageous suggestion of sterilizing all American boys. You do realize how completely foolish and absurd that suggestion makes you look?
It certainly would work better than your wimpy ways. Remember, a male can get innumerable females pregnant; a female can get pregnant only once by innumerable males.

P.S. The male sterilization is only temporary, so stop whining.

If you don't want us to "encourage" or "press upon" people not to engage in harmful activities, then should we stop the advertisements and campaigns against smoking, drug abuse, sexual abuse, or dropping out of high school? Are all of those encouragements the "wimpiest and most ineffective solutions" that you've heard? If not, then why are they different? Is it possible that you are really the wimpy one here for being afraid to discourage out of wedlock births for seemingly no other reason than it contradicts your feminist, liberal political ideals?
You see how well that's working for smoking, drug abuse, sexual activity and abuse. And you're a Christian???

It certainly would work better than your wimpy ways. Remember, a male can get innumerable females pregnant; a female can get pregnant only once by innumerable males.Your stubborness is incredible. I have agreed on multiple occasions that we should tell boys to reserve sex for marriage. I would have thought that it would be a simple and short step to agree to tell women the same thing. Oh well. You have no answers. Shame.


P.S. The male sterilization is only temporary, so stop whining.Wow. You are seriously wanting the government to come in and force teen age boys to be sterilized, and you think it's OK because, after all, it's only temporary? How insane.


You see how well that's working for smoking, drug abuse, sexual activity and abuse. And you're a Christian???It's widely known that smoking is less prevalent than it was a few decades ago, so yeah that has worked. I am beyond astonished that you would be against campaigns to discourage drug abuse and sexual abuse. It's where your liberal persuasions have taken you. Sterilize the boys, and expect nothing out of the women. Words cannot express how glad I am that I do not accept that.

Your stubborness is incredible. I have agreed on multiple occasions that we should tell boys to reserve sex for marriage.
And we see how well that has been working.

I would have thought that it would be a simple and short step to agree to tell women the same thing. Oh well. You have no answers. Shame.
Women's reproductive organs are a lot more complex than are men's. There are women on this site who have correctly used multiple forms of birth control and still got pregnant. With males, a temporary, reversible vasectomy is a good solution to not bringing unwanted babies into the world. We could even have a big party after the wedding ceremony when a male is unvasectomized!

Wow. You are seriously wanting the government to come in and force teen age boys to be sterilized, and you think it's OK because, after all, it's only temporary? How insane.
No, it would be a special ceremony with gifts and refreshments. The boy's family would be all for it so as to avoid future embarrassment and extra mouths to feed.

It's widely known that smoking is less prevalent than it was a few decades ago, so yeah that has worked. I am beyond astonished that you would be against campaigns to discourage drug abuse and sexual abuse. It's where your liberal persuasions have taken you. Sterilize the boys, and expect nothing out of the women. Words cannot express how glad I am that I do not accept that.
Lots of people still smoke. And now vaping is on the upswing. Go, nicotine!!!

Women's reproductive organs are a lot more complex than are men's. There are women on this site who have correctly used multiple forms of birth control and still got pregnant. With males, a temporary, reversible vasectomy is a good solution to not bringing unwanted babies into the world. We could even have a big party after the wedding ceremony when a male is unvasectomized!

Women who don't have sex don't get pregnant. Even that way, way more complex repro system follows that rule. But yes, I'm sure your idea is the way to go. Please, please, please get the dem nominee to advocate for that. We can call it, "Wondergirls' Remarkable Idea for National Birth Control." It would be a real winner!

Women who don't have sex don't get pregnant. Even that way, way more complex repro system follows that rule. But yes, I'm sure your idea is the way to go. Please, please, please get the dem nominee to advocate for that. We can call it, "Wondergirls' Remarkable Idea for National Birth Control." It would be a real winner!
It sure is a lot easier to keep him from putting his body part where it doesn't belong.

Like I said, I love your idea. I sincerely hope the dem nominee takes it up and runs with it. It'd be wonderful, Wondergirl!

Well JL, you have shot down and denigrated everybody on this subject, so I guess you win so preach on and close more clinics in your state. If there are any left. Actually I'm all for telling the youths to apply logic and protection but making them get married after the deed is done is a whole nuther ball game. I mean they've been preaching for thousands of years already, and abortions are still here as well as a few other things like prostitution, so to WG's point, how effective is all that preaching. Works with the choir, but the choir ain't as big or dedicated any more.

Takes a lot of dedication to keep preaching though, kudos for them, but the problem waxes and wanes but remains a problem. If you think more conservative judges is the answer, good luck with that, as that's been tried before too!

Well JL, you have shot down and denigrated everybody on this subject.
I've denigrated no person. I hope you're not trying to defend the odious idea of forced sterilization of teen aged boys. That idea deserves every ounce of denigration we can deliver. In fact I sincerely hope that WG is suggesting that as something of a joke.


Actually I'm all for telling the youths to apply logic and protection but making them get married after the deed is done is a whole nuther ball game.I would largely agree with that. Now if we could convince women to return to the idea, observed for thousands of years, of keeping their pants on until marriage, then the problem would be much reduced.


I mean they've been preaching for thousands of years already, and abortions are still here as well as a few other things like prostitution, so to WG's point, how effective is all that preaching. Works with the choir, but the choir ain't as big or dedicated any more.But that's true of many things. We preach against murder, yet we still have murders. We preach against rape, yet we still have rape. We preach against theft, violence, drug abuse, and human trafficking, and yet we still have all of those things. Can you see that your premise is wrong? You seem to say that since we still have abortion and out of wedlock births, then our preaching is futile, but how much greater a problem would those things be if no one opposed them? The greatest immorality I can imagine is for us to abandon the effort and just let it all run rampant. We all realize that we live in a sin infested world. It will never be perfect, but that does not mean we give up trying to protect life and make things better.

Thanks for trying. Keep up the good work! I say that seriously. Back in the day I knew a lot of young guys that went the vasectomy route. Married young, divorced young, and a few kids, child support/health insurance, and she got the house. The married/divorced and pending list was the joke of the department.

I https://i.redd.it/hcayogrg9cb41.jpg


Thanks for trying. Keep up the good work! I say that seriously. Back in the day I knew a lot of young guys that went the vasectomy route. Married young, divorced young, and a few kids, child support/health insurance, and she got the house. The married/divorced and pending list was the joke of the department.I appreciate that comment and I do believe it is offered sincerely. What you describe is, in my view, the sad failure of our present culture. I believe that marriage is the foundation of any society. If that's true, then you can see why we are having the problems we have today. And I say that without pointing fingers at anyone. My wife was divorced when I married her. Thanks to her Christian commitment, we have made it nearly 36 years, but it has not always been easy.

I guess you have noticed that I finally figured out how to post images. Be fearful. Be very fearful! Now if I can just figure out how to get the smilies to work.

One more, and then I'll stop...for now.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10216719988054022&set=a.1514134935270&type=3&eid=ARB9HKj2DZdGaDXokVJ3BwmC4ocn9KY5ErSk1KZxNLRcWj kUdPD4sh8QCtKtfF79iMVYLXXQHKjwBkJvhttps://scontent.fmem1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/83426351_10216719988094023_1251957093901008896_n.j pg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_ohc=p7loBvNGggQAX9Qe4rL&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-2.fna&oh=592854a25b1f5126103ce2535d6204ad&oe=5ECBA0A7

Ok. Just one more for a laugh.https://scontent.fmem1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/82589304_618099409009148_3998698046740234240_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ohc=BCoG3n_OJK0AX--3611&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-1.fna&oh=b7ffabd6e8cb5ba201c725964f713cfe&oe=5EC792E0

WOW! I knew one day you would EVOLVE! Proud of you bro!

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/kn012320dAPR20200123034508.jpg

It can take an old guy a while, but I finally got there. It's still not copy and paste. I use the insert image option and put the URL in. It takes a little doing, but it does work.

witnesses like Hunter and Joe ;the emperor and Comey ? It has be a a special sort of desperation to think that Bolton is going to turn hostile witness. Even if he did not agree with the policy he would not throw the President under the bus. And of course it would NOT be obstruction for Trump to invoke executive privilege .Hunter Biden on the other hand has no such immunity.

When the dems came up so short on evidence in the kangaroo court held in the House, it was then basically over. It remains over.

There is just something very sinister about the Biden Crime Family: I particularly would love to see young Hunter skewered just on principle.

I don't know that young Biden did anything illegal, but I think it is very likely that he was given that job so the Ukes could gain favor with good ole dad.

I don't know that young Biden did anything illegal, but I think it is very likely that he was given that job so the Ukes could gain favor with good ole dad.
Sorta like Ivanka and Donnie Jr. and Eric helping their dad with the family business while their fingers are in the WH pie.

Sorta like Ivanka and Donnie Jr. and Eric helping their dad with the family business while their fingers are in the WH pie.Very similar in that they are doing nothing illegal.

Very similar in that they are doing nothing illegal.
Of course they are!! Sheesh!

Of course they are!! Sheesh!Oh? What are they doing illegal, Miss "I'm not a left winger"?

Oh? What are they doing illegal, Miss "I'm not a left winger"?
They are to peel off family business when involved in WH operations, so there's no conflict of interest.

"Conflict of interest" is the tRump family's middle name.

They are to peel off family business when involved in WH operations, so there's no conflict of interest.

"Conflict of interest" is the tRump family's middle name.At some point, you have to come up with more than just accusations. Some evidence would be nice.

Like the evidence against the HB?

Like the evidence against the HB?I've already said, "I don't know that young Biden did anything illegal, but I think it is very likely that he was given that job so the Ukes could gain favor with good ole dad."

You could be correct but what does that have to do with anything except as dirt on a political opponent, or the illegal lengths the dufus will go to using his position as a president to get it. It doesn't matter what the Ukrainians did about it, what matters is what the dufus wanted them to do for his personal gain, get dirt on the Biden's, and take the cyber heat off of Vlad who is still doing his thing to undermine our elections again.

The real question is and always has been did the dufus commit illegal acts and abuse his powers for personal gain? The answer is a resounding hell yes, and all the evidence supports that conclusion, and that he is trying his level best to cover up that fact. The whole notion they had to fire an ambassador is also evidence of how far the dufus will go to get what he wants and the lives he would destroy along the way at the behest of his henchmen Rudy and his cohorts. You know the guys he claims he doesn't know and never met?

what the dufus wanted them to do for his personal gain,Your evidence for that is zero.


The real question is and always has been did the dufus commit illegal acts and abuse his powers for personal gain? The answer is a resounding hell yes, and all the evidence supports that conclusion,You have the real question right. You have the answer entirely wrong. As to destroying lives, I know that really doesn't bother you very much since, after all, you voted for two people responsible for the destruction of four lives in Benghazi.

Your evidence for that is zero.

We disagree about that but no surprise there but maybe the truth is between our divergent opinions.


You have the real question right. You have the answer entirely wrong. As to destroying lives, I know that really doesn't bother you very much since, after all, you voted for two people responsible for the destruction of four lives in Benghazi.

The war on terror had many casualties, you are stuck on Benghazi. A sneak attack is a sneak attack like Pearl harbor and 9/11. Get over it!

We disagree about that but no surprise there but maybe the truth is between our divergent opinions.You can post that evidence when you are ready.



You have the real question right. You have the answer entirely wrong. As to destroying lives, I know that really doesn't bother you very much since, after all, you voted for two people responsible for the destruction of four lives in Benghazi.


The war on terror had many casualties, you are stuck on Benghazi. A sneak attack is a sneak attack like Pearl harbor and 9/11. Get over it!It's the lying that went on afterwards, and the gross inattention that went on before, that I object to. But as I've said many times, your philosophy seems to say that if a liberal does it, then it's no problem and we must just "get over it."

You can post that evidence when you are ready.

You can read the House presentation for yourself since its a matter of public record now as is my own postings of the matter, if indeed you missed it, but more likely ignored or dismissed it as you are want too in things you disagree with.


It's the lying that went on afterwards, and the gross inattention that went on before, that I object to. But as I've said many times, your philosophy seems to say that if a liberal does it, then it's no problem and we must just "get over it."

Leave it to you to conflate many things together and misrepresent them, exaggerate them, or reduce them to conservative or liberal, left or right, or up and down. Few people are as you say and fit neatly into the box you construct for them. There was no we in get over it. It wasn't intended to be a blanket statement, but a direct one to YOU and no one else, given your postings on the subjects.

They presented nothing to prove that he did anything for personal gain. If they had, you would have posted it.

Leave it to you to completely ignore the proven wrongdoings of the Obama admin. I have no intention of "getting over" the needless deaths of four Americans and the lying that went on to conceal the responsibility. Try telling that to their families.

What does it matter since you are evidence blind and time challenged anyway? You think I'm going to type a bunch of stuff for you to dismiss and mock? Take the hint, rather than repeat myself you just rant on and we wait for the next event to present itself.

What does it matter since you are evidence blind and time challenged anyway? You think I'm going to type a bunch of stuff for you to dismiss and mock?It's easy to be evidence blind when there is no evidence to be seen.

It's easy to be evidence blind when there is no evidence to be seen.
Why were you watching Adult Swim instead?

Why were you watching Adult Swim instead?Might as well. Would see as much evidence there that Trump was engaging in personal gain in this nonsense as I would've gotten from the dems. I would see as much evidence there as I see on this board. Zero.

That's so convenient to have such a disability.

Disability? You mean the inability to provide evidence to prove guilt? Well yes, I would agree with that.

One could be forgiven for not being able to see certain things, but not wanting to know is an entirely different aspects of denial.

One could be forgiven for not being able to see certain things, but not wanting to know is an entirely different aspects of denial.

Ok that makes me in denial because I just don't want to know and that really doesn't matter what the argument is, too much argy, bargy

not wanting to knowReally? You alleged that Trump did things for personal gain. I asked you (i.e. wanted to know) for evidence of that. You have come up with zero. So who is really in denial here?

BTW, if you know of any such evidence, then just list it. Your "links to nowhere" are usually not productive. Be specific. "Just listen to what Schiff said," is not an answer.

Well JL, it seems that Bolton has written in his book that the dufus told Bolton the defense money depended on the Ukraine doing him that favor about those investigations. The dufus denies it. Boltons word against the dufus word. Makes a case for witnesses and documents.

Well JL, it seems that Bolton has written in his book that the dufus told Bolton the defense money depended on the Ukraine doing him that favor about those investigations. The dufus denies it. Boltons word against the dufus word. Makes a case for witnesses and documents.He said, she said. Even if it's true, it still does not establish the motive for what Trump asked them to do.

You don't need a motive you get the sworn testimony and documents that back up the testimony to get the motive. You wanted direct first hand knowledge, you just got it. Bolton writes that the dufus wanted the hold kept on until he got his favor. QUID Pro QUO by definition. Extortion by LAW. Cover up by obstruction by with holding EVIDENCE by LAW. Got a bible? Swear Bolton in and let's get on with it.

PS

He also writes that Pompeo, and Mulvaney were in on the discussion of what the dufus was doing. Swear them in too.

QUID Pro QUO by definition. Extortion by LAWIt would be a quid pro quo for certain, but not extortion. Governments make these arrangements all the time and a quid pro quo is not illegal in any way. It is a very common arrangement. Extortion is a silly accusation. There was no threat of force and no attempt made toward personal gain through the use of a threat of force.

There doesn't have to be a threat of force, as withholding funds or military aid during a war is as effective as a threat as force is. The personal gain was dirt on his political opponent, and implicating Ukraine in the interference into the 2016 election, both actions the dufus sought was for HIS re election in 2020. That was the illegality plain and simple. Of what use would investigating the Biden's and Crowdstrike do to benefit our country?

Extortion, Bribery, both could easily apply. He got caught doing it regardless but his intent was OBVIOUS...smear his opponent and clear Vlad of wrongdoing. He should really confess and resign in shame and save the country this divisive corrupt drama.

MORE TO COME so stay tuned.

Their war fighting capacity was not affected by the funds being withheld. They were not even aware that was the case, and both the PM and FM say there was no quid pro quo. So his intent might be obvious to you, but it was unquestionably not obvious to them.

Attempting a shakedown is as illegal as carry it out and succeeding. Doesn't matter if the Ukrainians knew it or not. Whether they suffered from the delay and lack of support is irrelevant also to the attempted shakedown. If they had then it would have just looked a lot worse in everyone's eyes though.

Saying there is no quid pro quo is NOTHING unless proven, and in this case it was not only admitted publicly by Mulvaney, but established by the dufus, assistance for investigations. I've already laid out the illegalities of the dufus's actions, personal gain to cheat during the 2020 election through a foreign government.

He is entitled a defense, and a FAIR trial which must include witnesses and documents.

Saying there is no quid pro quo is NOTHING unless proven, I didn't say that. I said it was nothing period in and of itself. It's done in business all the time, millions of times a day. And if their FM and PM say there was no pressure on them, the money was delivered, and what Trump requested was not done, then I think you have a deep hole to scale out of.

Just because it did not succeed doesn't change the fact he tried. If you shoot someone and miss does that mean it's NOT a crime?

Just because it did not succeed doesn't change the fact he tried. If you shoot someone and miss does that mean it's NOT a crime?The fact that the other party of the supposed qpq knew nothing of it tells us there was no qpq attempted. It takes two to tango.

I can agree except for as pointed out earlier, we have not really established when Ukraine knew of the hold, and whether they could have done anything about it if they did know, which just adds to the criminality and diliberate bad intent of taking advantage of a helpless government. Your version of QPQ suggests some equality between the parties that obviously didn't exist or was agreed upon given that a country at war would be at the mercy and good grace of providers of the goods or services to execute that war.

Clearly Ukraine was a dependent in this case, so wheher they knew of the hold or not is immaterial. In effect any dancing done by them would hardly be voluntary, or of free will and good conscious, I would argue since they were effectively at the mercy of the US. That's a very vulnerable position to be in and enough too make the exchange of an investigation announcement for the needed supplies and weapons of war a leveraged QPQ they could hardly resist.

What is especially egregious here though is the assumption of no pressure that is also put forth citing public statements by the president and prime minister, and just submit how the hell could they even publicly admit such a thing? Who really could and chance losing support and supplies, and one thing the dufus is known for is making those that piss him off pay dearly. Just ask Flake, Corker, Sandford, or any senator that dares vote against him in this trial, or his political enemies period, real or perceived.